Saturday, January 8, 2011


For a quarter century, everyone has demanded accountability in public education because of declining student academic performance. Everyone wants teachers or schools to explain or justify themselves and officials to punish or reward them. I am not much for accountability, but, if it is the order of the day, why for teachers and schools only?

School board candidates or members invoke accountability. But I have rarely heard of principals holding teachers accountable; superintendents, principals; school boards, superintendents; or the public, school boards. So, for them, accountability is a charade. Too bad: I would love to hear Las Cruces and New Mexico officials explain or justify poor local and state educational performance, and to see the consequences of that accounting.

Most politicians and businesspeople also like the word accountability. They invoke it to seem sincere, sensible, and responsible about wanting to improve public education. They like a word reflecting inclinations for short cuts and quick fixes easily represented and rationalized by numbers. They use it to cover their lack of understanding of education and their reluctance to try to understand it. So, in a state with a long-term record of poor and deteriorating public education, they give 5 percent of their attention to 50 percent of the state budget. I would love it if they were held accountable.

Politicians and businesspeople have twisted accountability into a rationalization of a biased approach to assessments which, intended or not, stigmatize, intimidate, or punish teachers or schools. The approach combines two seemingly plausible procedures to give it a veneer of reasonableness. One procedure counts data like test scores and dropout or graduation rates; the other procedure scores the data; the results determine labels, threats, and interventions. They do not use results to suitable, constructive purposes: criticize to remediate and encourage to enhance—to improve.

As a result, politicians and businesspeople have achieved a record of consistent failure by enforcing a doctrine of accountability based on counting and scoring procedures. The longer they have dictated the use of these procedures and ignored curriculum content and instructional methods, the greater the deterioration of education. The more they have demanded that teachers or schools obey their dictates (or else), the greater the damage to, and deterioration of, educators’ ability to do their job. As imposed by politicians and promoted by businesspeople, accountability has sped the decline of public education and has let them scapegoat everyone else for it.

For nothing about this doctrine has anything to do with education. Under the spell of its underlying numerology, politicians and businesspeople believe that what their approach cannot count and score has no value and need not be taught. Accountability shrinks curriculum and straightjackets instruction. It constricts education to teaching from textbooks and teachers’ manuals to tests of skills in reading and computing; it thus stifles literature, history, and science; it strangles other valuable lessons which students learn from good teachers outside the work-by-the-rule fetters of accountability.

However, public education might benefit if politicians and businesspeople applied their doctrine of accountability to two deserving targets.

First, the Public Education Department, with no record of helping public education. PED’s curriculum guidelines and benchmarks are mindless, mind-numbing documents serving no good purpose. Worse, it requires districts to produce similar documents in greater mindless, mind-numbing detail serving no good purpose. It does not monitor classroom implementation, which is non-existent; it shuffles papers and requires others to shuffle papers. And its application form for teacher certification devotes much space to character and fitness, some to education, none to experience. Since politicians and businesspeople decry the decline in student academic performance and declare a desire for better teachers, perhaps they should ask why PED’s curriculum efforts have not improved public education, and whether its certification requirements have failed to ensure teacher competency but have succeeded in excluding talented people from teaching.

Second, the state’s colleges or schools of education, with no record of adequately training teachers. For example, NMSU’s COE requires prospective elementary school teachers to take upper-class courses in only one of the four core subjects which they will teach. Most opt for English, a few for social studies, and almost none for mathematics and science. Inevitably, many have trouble teaching mathematics and science. Ironically, despite several reading courses, many have trouble teaching reading. The results have been similar for a decade: only 50% of 4th-grade students demonstrate proficiency in arithmetic or reading. Perhaps politicians and businesspeople should ask the COE and its faculty why their graduates are ill-prepared to get students off to a good start, and hold this school and its teachers accountable for the performance of their students.

I am not much for accountability. But fair is fair. Those with power over local districts and those with authority to train teachers should be no less accountable than those whom they boss around or lord it over. Why are top state and school of education officials not accountable to the public which pays them?

No comments:

Post a Comment