RSS
Home
Solution 2: Accountability (Flashback to the Soviet Union)
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
This solution seems to make a whole lot of sense, and is almost equally popular among both Democrats and Republicans. Even the teacher unions such as NEA support the general thrust of the current accountability reform, although they often disagree with how it is implemented. Similar ideas have swept around the world, and many countries are implementing something similar, under different names.
The idea is very simple ad can be reduced to three steps. One: establish clear curriculum standards; spell out what kids should know and able to do in every grade. This is done to ensure that schools can be compared to each other, and that curriculum does not get watered down. Two: design an independent testing system. Indeed, those who measure achievement should be different people from those who teach, otherwise there is a conflict of interest. Because student achievement reflects on teacher’s performance, you cannot really trust the grades, can you?. You want builders and building inspectors be independent of each other, right? Well, it should be the same in education. And three: create clear comparisons among schools and districts, and tangible consequences for both good and bad schools. In other words, public funding should imply public accountability. We should pay schools not for trying to teach, but for demonstrating actual results.
It does look very logical, and very convincing, which is why there exists broad public support for accountability reforms, although there is significant opposition to it among teachers. There is much variation among states on implementing the reforms. No Child Left Behind act, with all its problems, for the first time provided a federal framework for the reforms, without implementing national curriculum standards (Frankly, national standards would not hurt at all; math is math in Alabama or Connecticut, and State Rights have little practical significance with respect to curriculum).
Most of the criticisms of accountability reform are actually criticizing deficiencies of implementation rather than the fundamental idea. For example, many teachers and parents complain that the emphasis on testing creates pressure to “teach to the test.” However, as one of my undergraduates noticed, all teaching should be towards some “test,” otherwise it is simply not purposeful. Just because many tests are poorly designed, and emphasize rote memorization does not mean we should not assess how much learning occurred. In other words, it is an argument not against testing, but against bad testing. So, the criticism is fair, but it suggests improving assessment, not abandoning accountability.
Another very fair criticism is that focus on core courses reduces the breadth of curriculum. For example, if much emphasis is placed on reading, writing, and math, then social studies, arts, and science are often sidelined. So, kids may end up reading fluently, but not knowing much about anything, and unable to comprehend what they are reading. They can apply mathematical formulas, but have no idea what those mean in real life. Again, this is very real thing, but it suggests redefining core curriculum, rather than abandoning accountability.
Accountability reform as an idea (not necessarily as practice) looks very strong. Yet, alas, there is a glitch. Isn’t there always? There is a very obvious vulnerability to the whole scheme which is quite easy to see, but it receives very little attention. The solution is entirely Soviet; it is based on administrative control, rather than on self-interest of involved individuals. In schooling, two main parties are involved: students and teachers. You can pressure teachers as much as you want, but if students have little interest or motivation to learn, there is very little a teacher can do to make them. Of course, we all hear stories about these amazing inspiring teachers who change the lives of students. The assumption is often – “why can’t they all do that?” But when you see Mike Phelps compete at the Olympics, you do not wonder why can’t everyone swim like this, do you? What makes you think teaching is easier? There are amazing stars of the profession, but you cannot expect everyone be a star, can you? If you don’t believe me, volunteer in a schools for day, and you will immediately know what every teacher also knows: there are other people involved in the equation; they all have free will, even if they do not yet have adult rights. And you cannot fire them if they don’t want to cooperate.
There are no miracles in education. We compel millions of very different kids to come to schools, spend some 13 years there whether they want it or not. We put regular people just like you and me in charge of their learning. What makes you think you can keep all kids engaged and interested just by sheer force of teacher’s personality? Just like in the Soviet economy, if the workers are not motivated to try hard, no amount of administrative control will help. Capitalism works not because its managers are so smart, but because there is an incentive for workers to perform, and an economic need to hold a job. It is truly amazing to watch the most radical free marketers to try to regulate education to death, while trying to unregulated the rest of the economy as much as possible. That Republican administrations become associated with the accountability reform is a paradox, if you think about it.
But I digress. At first glance, the accountability solution makes a lot of sense, and can bring limited, but significant improvement. It cannot fundamentally improve education, because it does not provide any real incentive for students – the main workers of the educational industry – to perform. And as I said before, for upper and upper middle class kids, the promise of college and a good job works to some degree to keep them at least somewhat compliant with schooling. For lower class students, the benefits of a high school diploma are truly minimal; the benefits of solid high school-level knowledge are entirely fictional. This is not a statement that can be refuted with anecdotal evidence, but rather one based on statistical evidence.
