蜜桃影视

鈥淚 think it is very difficult for a person who lives in a community to know whether, in fact, his educational system is what it should be, whether if you compare his community to a neighboring community they are doing everything they should be, whether the people that are operating the educational system in a state or local community are as good as they should be鈥︹�澨�鈥� Sen. Robert F. Kennedy (1965)

鈥淚 don鈥檛 think you can solve a problem if you can鈥檛 diagnose it, and I don鈥檛 think it is fair for parents of students not to be informed of how their schools perform relative to other schools and how their children perform relative to other children.鈥澨�鈥� President George W. Bush (2014)

Accountability. On its surface, the word simply means a willingness to accept responsibility for one鈥檚 actions. Accountability as applied to schools, however, has become so twisted and polarizing that it is now the equivalent of a dirty word. To mention it is to risk being met with stern, disapproving looks and accusations of being anti-teacher and a corporate raider looking to profit off the backs of kids. What? How did we get here?

As with all polarizing issues, the truth is much more nuanced and requires us to look beyond the sound bites. The 鈥�A鈥� Word seeks to do that through conversations with听recognized education leaders.

Accountability鈥檚 Origins

It is worth remembering that the origins of school accountability are found in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The landmark legislation prompted American leaders听to examine听how schools across the country could move beyond the separate-but-equal educational approach that听Brown v. Board of Education听had听rightly condemned听a decade before.听As long ago as Abraham Lincoln,听American听leaders had warned听that the听nation could not progress if the United States听remained a house divided.听

After Congress passed the historic law, educating all of America鈥檚 children well gained momentum as a moral imperative. A听fledgling听education movement听emerged听in the 1960s to confront the largely racial divisions that existed across the country. The reformers insisted upon raising听academic听standards for听补濒濒听students and ensuring that students听of听补濒濒 backgrounds听meet them.听Not only was this听new path听seen as moral and right, it was understood as a necessity for an economy that,听post-Sputnik, was taking on听a sophisticated technological dimension.

The听accountability movement听soon听spawned听the听National Assessment of Education Progress, with the first exams being taken in 1969. Known as the Nation鈥檚 Report Card, NAEP would help the nation answer Sen. Kennedy鈥檚 question and compare the success of students across communities and states. Some community leaders and elected officials听understood that measuring听the academic progress of听补濒濒听students听would help ensure that poor or minority students were not听bypassed. Efforts to desegregate schools picked up momentum.

In the 1980s,听the nation became听more aware that academic听standards must improve for the U.S.听to maintain its advantage in an economy increasingly driven by technologies.听Some states responded in the听1990s with independent exams听to focus more on the 鈥渙utputs鈥� of schools,听such as student achievement rates,听not solely听on听the 鈥渋nputs,鈥� such as school spending.

But not all states used a common, comparable assessment. That meant no 鈥渁pples to apples鈥� comparison of student progress across district or state lines for parents and stakeholders. Districts and states were also not required to report student performance by such categories as race, ethnicity, and income, known today as sub-group student data.

Instead, averages were commonly accepted, masking the gaps in performance 鈥斕�and supports 鈥� for students who were black, Latino, or poor, as well as students who were challenged by learning disabilities or who were English language learners. The smooth edges of averages made two assumptions palatable: First, most of our schools were doing just fine; and second, some students were just not able to achieve at high levels.听

(Click through the grid below to read each leader鈥檚 take on accountability)

Bipartisan Support

In 2001,听President听George W. Bush听led a bipartisan group of听policymakers, including Sen. Edward Kennedy, to address this phenomenon, what he termed the听鈥渟oft bigotry of low expectations.鈥澨齌he bipartisan leaders听understood that听schools and students would benefit from independent exams being given annually in key subjects听like reading and math. They also believed that holding schools and districts responsible for the results would lead to progress for every student, regardless of their personal circumstances.

Their shared commitment led to the creation of听No Child Left Behind in 2002. The law required states to determine whether听their students were meeting state academic standards and held schools accountable for the results.听

NCLB听ensured the results were transparent听so parents, schools, and taxpayers could听see how well each group of students performed in a district and on a campus.听This focus on student subgroup data was powerful. Not so long ago, some students were intentionally excluded from measurement;听for example,听Dallas only started giving the Iowa Test of Basic Skills to minority students in the early 1970s.

Throughout the 2000s, scores on NAEP exams rose for many students, including poor and minority youth.听The progress built upon the success of the accountability systems that听states created听both before听and after NCLB.

In granting waivers from NCLB鈥檚 requirements, the Obama administration further pushed a federal agenda that included Common Core standards and more reliable teacher evaluations. The Every Student Succeeds Act now places the responsibility back on the states to meaningfully measure the progress of all students. The law, which Congress passed in 2015, forces states to articulate what matters to them, how they will measure it, and how they will support schools falling short.

The Pushback

Over time, though, a resistance to accountability has emerged. Opponents question听the emphasis on raising academic standards, independently assessing students against those high standards, and holding educators responsible听for the results.听

The gaps in student achievement across various groups of students were plainly revealed through accountability systems. Yet not enough research-based, proven interventions were available to educators who were trying to change policy and practice in order to better serve students. At the same time, knowledge of how to implement and sustain interventions in complex school environments was lacking. Political will began to wane and resistance grew.

The pushback intensified as the performance of some districts and schools on independent state exams did not track the self-congratulatory tone of local districts and their leaders. It is difficult to claim that all of a district鈥檚 students are successful and that all of its educators are exemplary if student achievement data tell a more sobering story. In short, accountability started to pinch. The interests of adults in the system and children in the system 鈥� sadly and strangely 鈥� became at odds.

Today,听voices resisting the push for accountability have become louder and more powerful. Frequently, messages resisting or disparaging testing, standards, teacher evaluations, and school and district report cards are听found in op-eds,听sound bites, and school board meetings.

This swing in sentiment is not a total surprise; the work of educating children is complex, as many talented educators working hard each day on behalf of their students can attest. This complexity is magnified for our most vulnerable students. That complexity, however, does not justify a retreat. Implementing meaningful accountability systems requires thoughtful and diligent persistence 鈥� and it requires challenging long-held assumptions, practices, and power structures.

The Missing Voices

What is missing听from today鈥檚 debate are the voices of the many education leaders who have embraced accountability as a way听to change outcomes for听the students and families听they serve. These leaders actively seek and use reliable data to measure progress and听to determine which research-based interventions are likely to increase student success. They operate transparently in听drawing public attention to the challenges schools face and the achievements they make.听They openly address the complexity of getting accountability systems right while maintaining their focus on measuring the progress of all students.

Perhaps not surprisingly, these leaders听face听opposition. Yet they persist in听鈥渄oing鈥� the work of accountability each day and are learning along the way; it is their perspective that needs amplification in policy discussions.听

This series听of conversations aims to do just that 鈥� to give voice to such leaders听so that their听experiences听and perspectives can inform and influence accountability policy and practice at the local, state, and federal levels.听Over the next several weeks, you will hear from:

– John King and Margaret Spellings, two former U.S. education secretaries;

–听Hanna Skandera, Kevin Huffman, Gerard Robinson, Lizzette Reynolds, and Felicia Cumings Smith, each of whom has served as a state education chief or a top-ranking state education official;

–听Daniel King and Tom Boasberg, the superintendents of the Pharr鈥揝an Juan鈥揂lamo school district in Texas and Denver Public Schools, respectively; and

–听Diane Tavenner, the founder of the Summit charter school network.

As you read these conversations, which we conducted this year, you will find听a strong explanation for why accountability practices matter听and听an honest analysis of how states, school districts, and听local campuses can improve those practices. Accountability is not a static concept; it is a dynamic one that听should be modernized and strengthened听for the benefit of America鈥檚 students.

The interviews were conducted over the telephone, transcribed, and edited for clarity and length. The same questions, or types of questions, were put to each participant听to see what they thought independently and collectively about accountability. Their answers will take the reader into听the inner workings of schools, the intricacies of the politics of education, and the ways in which campuses can better serve students.

Anne Wicks is director of education reform at the George W. Bush Institute. William McKenzie is editorial director at the George W. Bush Institute.

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 蜜桃影视鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.