RETHINKING ACCOUNTABILITY MODELS IN U.S. PUBLIC EDUCATION

Article Reflection

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/rethinking-accountability-models-in-964398.html?cxtype=rss_news_128746

Gaddis, S.M.  (2011, June 1). Rethinking accountability models in U.S. public education.

            Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/

            I have decided to reflect upon this opinion piece by S. Michael Gaddis from the Atlantic Journal Constitution because it highlights an issue of accountability that has arisen as a result of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) – a nationwide accountability system that sets out annual proficiency targets in math and reading.  The article outlines that while some data shows an increase in test scores since NCLB’s implementation, reports indicate that their has emerged a disturbing pattern of cheating on the part of teachers and administrators to achieve desired outcomes on tests.

            While I do not condone cheating in any form, I agree with Gaddis’s view that the focus of blame should not strictly fall on the teachers or school officials, but the root of the problem which is a narrowly defined system of accountability based on measurable outcomes. In my opinion, Gaddis makes a reasonable point in his argument that cheating scandals “should serve as an example of the serious unintended effects that can arise from such a narrowly focused accountability system” that uses test scores as the only indicator of performance. Even without cheating, Gaddis also presents a compelling argument in viewing high test scores as skewed because many teachers focus on subjects that they are accountable for, as well as those students whom they believe have a realistic chance of passing the test. Unfortunately, cheating occurs in the most extreme cases.

            Although we do not have such a test-driven system here in Ontario, it may be argued that the pressures of performing well on standardized tests do not lead to widespread cheating, but rather a skewing or manipulation of data.  Due to the emphasis on outcomes-based results and the ranking of schools, many weaker students are placed on ‘temporary’ IEPs, which gives them extra time or even a recorder during EQAO tests. In other cases, some weaker students have their test differed to the following year. In both cases, administrators and teachers take these measures in an effort to ensure that all students pass and that the school’s public ranking is not lowered.  According to Croxford, Gray, and Ozga (2009), almost 90% of teachers in both the English and Scottish systems warned that the ‘public ranking of schools leads to teaching to the test’ and reported that ‘there was a real danger that public ranking of schools might lead to manipulation of data’.  Although cheating may occur in extreme cases, it is very probable that a manipulation of data by schools occurs on a considerable scale in order to ensure a respectable ranking.

            In his opinion piece, Gaddis asks the following rhetorical question: “Should passing a test score be the primary focus of the education system?”  He correctly argues that “students’ knowledge and preparedness for the world are more than just a number on a piece of paper,” but that “we should reward teachers for fostering critical thinking, emotional development, teamwork and creativity, among a myriad of other important skills.”  Our reading of Moller’s (2009) article, “School leadership in an age of accountability: Tensions between managerial and professional accountability” addresses the emphasis on testing over the holistic development of the student. Moller (2009) argues that “by this shift in focus there is a risk of ignoring some of the most critical purposes of public schooling, for example preparation for participation in a democratic society or processes that creates and sustains social justice, which is not easily or cheaply measured” (p. 40).

            In this respect, I agree with the view that a test-driven system ultimately results in failure: it sometimes leads to unethical practices among educators, and it fails in the holistic development of the child.

Works Referenced

Croxford, L., Gray, J., & Ozga  (2009). A. Teacher Attitudes to Quality Assurance

                        and Evaluation (QAE) in Scotland and England. September (51).   

Moller, J. (2008).  School leadership in an age of accountability: Tensions between

managerial and professional accountability. Journal of Educational

                         Change (10), 37-46.