Accountability

            No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is our current accountability system.  It “holds all elementary schools, regardless of student characteristics, accountable for achieving proficient student scores in reading and math” (Rothstein & Jacobsen, 2006).  This system is not working for our students.  Schools are changing their curricular focus to emphasize reading and math because they are the subject areas being tested, and are limiting or eliminating instruction in other, non-assessed, curricular areas.  With the continuation of NCLB, we are likely to experience dire consequences in our schools because the focus is on improving test scores and not on teaching students.  According to Rothstein (2011), we are likely to see more test-prep, less proper identification of success, and less quality instruction in the classroom.  Rather than continuing with the status quo, we need to look at accountability differently.

Accountability should be based on the progress students are making toward standards.  The goal should always be proficiency, but not all students are going to be able to reach that mark, and not all students are going to reach the mark at the same time.  Rather than discouraging principals, teachers, and students who aren’t able to meet the high proficiency expectations, authors Stecher, Vernez, and Steinberg recommend focusing on a growth model in their evaluation of NCLB.  A system that focused on growth could eliminate feelings of discouragement and would be more realistic and attainable for students than our current system.  It would better meet the needs of individuals.  This idea matches Jennifer Jennings’ philosophy that we “identify schools as in need of improvement based on whether they are making less growth than expected” (2009).  If we assume that all students should make one year’s growth in one year’s time, then using various assessments, we can determine whether students are making those gains or not.  Schools that consistently don’t help their students grow need to be reevaluated and the instruction or curriculum needs to be changed. 

            One problem with our current accountability system is that we have set one expectation for all students to meet, even though our students are not starting at the same level.  If all students began at the same starting point, it would be reasonable to set the same ending point.  Since students start at different points, though, it makes the most sense to measure growth from beginning to end to determine how much progress a student has made.  The current model only hurts our lower performing students; the bar is set so high that it isn’t attainable and any progress being made goes unacknowledged.  This isn’t fair for students, teachers, or schools. 

            This flaw hits particularly close to home as a special education teacher.  My special education students have already been identified as struggling learners.  It seems unreasonable to have the same expectations for these students as for other students.  My responsibility is to help these students, who already start below grade level, to improve as much as possible.  However, to expect my students to perform at the same proficiency level as their “average” and “above average” peers is insensitive to the needs of these students.  While it is my responsibility to help my students achieve grade level standards and ideally to reach the same proficiency level as their peers, it is not likely to happen within the same amount of time as their peers.  My students will need more time and this is not acknowledged.  If we instead look at growth over time, I would be able to show that my students are learning content material.  My situation is not an isolated one.  In this video, the speaker explains how the district’s special education students were making great learning gains, but still fell short of meeting proficiency ratings.  As educators, we need to be acknowledging student successes, not punishing our schools for making progress.  Special education students may not be meeting grade level standards yet, but we should celebrate the tremendous growth that can be accomplished, even if it doesn’t match the student’s grade level expectations.  This growth is a significant accomplishment, but it goes unnoticed under the current system.

Richard Rothstein criticizes the results of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) when he explains that it has not helped to make better schools, but has produced “test-prep factories” (2011).  When instruction is so focused on test-prep, students miss the larger context of the curricula.  Subjects are broken down into small skills that can be drilled, rather than taught in depth so students develop a solid understanding of the content.  For students whom memorizing is difficult, they can often understand larger concepts when taught in context.  NCLB has taken much of this instruction away and replaced it with scripted programs, allowing for little additional explanation.  Rather than providing students with opportunities to make connections with the content they are learning these rigid scripts merely push isolated facts on our children.

The idea behind NCLB was correct- we need to hold our schools accountable for teaching students.  The way in which we’re holding schools accountable is misguided.  Rather than setting a proficiency level for all students to attain, we need to be looking at students’ progress over time.  This allows schools to set reasonable expectations for their students but also requires that schools provide quality instruction.  Setting guidelines for progress rather than proficiency would allow all students to acknowledge their successes.  I would also anticipate positive changes in the curriculum because the emphasis wouldn’t have to be on reading and math, all subject areas could be included.  In order to make this change, other/new assessments would need to be developed to measure growth.  Some assessments are already being developed, like this assessment tool from Battelle for Kids that allows schools to align their assessments with their curriculum instead of having to align the curriculum with the assessment.  Priority would also have to be given to some content areas over other, in order for the assessments to be not so overwhelming.  Changing to a growth model would not be an easy or quick fix, but I do believe it would be better for our students- and if it’s better for our students, then I believe we should put forth the effort to make it happen.

References:

Eduwonkette (aka Jennifer Jennings). 2009. Wish #2: The End of Proficiency Only Accountability 

     Systems. Education Week.

Rothstein, R., and Rebecca Jacobsen. 2006. The Goals of Education. Phi Delta Kappan 88 (4): 264-72.   

      [8]

Rothstein, R. 2009. Getting Accountability Right. Education Week. [4]

Rothstein, R. 2011. A bet over NCLB. working economics. September 26.

Writing Curriculum- A Communal Approach

            Since teachers and administrators have primary contact with students in an educational setting and are responsible for implementing the given curriculum, one may assume that they are the ones making all of the curricular decisions.  While this may be a reality in many instances, I don’t think it is a wise decision.  Even though teachers are responsible for implementing the curriculum and administrators directly oversee this implementation, I believe they should never be given full control to determine what should be taught in the classroom.  Curricular changes should be made by representatives of all of the vested parties including community members, politicians, parents, administrators, and teachers in order to ensure that students are provided with a balanced education.

Teachers shouldn’t have the only voice in developing curriculum because they already have a significant amount of power over how they interpret and implement a given curriculum.  One problem that can arise is teachers implement the given curriculum and students don’t make as much progress as is anticipated.  When this occurs, teachers decide on their own what changes to make about what they will teach.  Teachers begin to meet the needs of their students, rather than following the curriculum.  While this is not inherently bad, it diminishes the integrity of the curriculum because it is no longer being fully implemented and therefore any conclusions drawn from testing results are invalid.  When teachers begin to modify the curriculum, inconsistency develops and soon it’s possible that every teacher in a building is teaching something different.  The resulting problem is that there is no way to determine if the given curriculum is effective or not because it hasn’t been implemented with integrity.  Because teachers already have so much authority over what is taught in the classroom, I don’t believe they should be able to determine what should be taught in the classroom without input from other stakeholders.    

There are many stakeholders in education and all of the different members should have a voice.  Teachers and administrators may have a greater say in what decisions are made because they are in the classroom on a daily basis and can help make logical curricular decisions, especially about the scope and sequence of skills, but they also need input from those outside the classroom.  Parents, politicians, and community members are also vested in the education of children and should have a say in what is taught.  Amy Gutmann (2005) describes this ideal of all groups coming together as “conscious social reproduction.”  This idea is a form of democratic education in which all vested parties have a say in the decisions that are made about the curriculum; it ensures that one group doesn’t have more power over another.  This setup allows all parties that have an interest in education to provide their input without allowing one group to dominate the others. 

Though the editorial “Who should plan the curriculum” was written in 1961, it is still quite relevant for this discussion and aligns well with Gutmann’s ideal.  In this article from Educational Leadership C. Glen Haas determines that in order to develop a quality curriculum, the curriculum development team must include scholars who are knowledgeable about the curricular material, parents and other public citizens, teachers and students.  He believes that all of these stakeholders deserve to have a significant say in the development of a schools’ curriculum.  I agree; when all of the above parties have input we are more likely to have a well-rounded curriculum designed to meet the needs of our students. 

            Gutmann places teachers in the “State of Individuals” when she categorizes those vested in education.  She commends teachers for their ability to promote the “dual goals of opportunity for choice and neutrality among disputed or controversial conceptions of the good life” (2005).  Teachers, in general, are able to provide students with information from multiple points of view and then allow the students to make up their own minds.  They don’t try to push their own agenda, but instead provide all sides of the issue so students can be informed.  The downside to the “State of Individuals,” according to Gutmann, is that we live in a society that pushes political agendas and that it is nearly impossible for anyone to be neutral because of our society.  Teachers may try to be neutral in their presentation of material but our students are not likely to respond in a similar fashion.  Teachers and administrators need input from other interested parties to ensure that students are provided with information that allows them to participate in the larger society as informed citizens. 

            Unfortunately, it seems that many teachers and educational institutions do not see curriculum development the same way I do.  Turning Points- Transforming Middle Schools (http://www.turningpts.org/pdf/Curriculum.pdf) is a curricular program developed to help middle school faculties improve and enhance their curriculum.  The program’s five main principles, which I fully agree with, are that a curriculum should be grounded in understanding middle school students, should be based on what the students know and can do, students should be engaged in authentic work, assessments should show students can do important work, and the curriculum should be school-wide.  The issue with this program is that it only involves teachers and administrators.  Parental involvement is mentioned, but it does not seem to be a vital component.  State standards and the input of the greater community are not mentioned at all.  A school in the United Kingdom boasts that they use a team-based approach to curriculum development (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UlzXSiD8FE) but upon further review, its team members are made up of only teachers.  In both situations, I find it difficult to believe that students are prepared to join the greater society if the curriculum developers are not getting input from society about what should be taught in the classroom.  Curriculum development needs to be founded on the decisions of multiple stakeholders. 

            Yes, teachers need to be part of the curriculum development process.  The knowledge they bring from working in the classroom is invaluable.  However, teachers and administrators should not be the only ones developing curriculum.  The curriculum development process needs to be a team effort involving teachers, administrators, community members, politicians, and parents.  When all parties are involved the likely outcome is a more well rounded curriculum than could be developed if only teachers were involved, which is more beneficial for our students. 

References:

Gutmann, A. 2005. The Authority and Responsibility to Educate. Randall Curren (ed.) A Companion to the Philosophy of Education (Malden, MA: Blackwell).