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.