Accountability: Are you ready for a new idea?
***Edit: 12.4.15: This is the first post where I publicly introduced the idea of bottom-up Local Accountability multiple-measure (dashboard) plans***
NEPC recently released a report entitled Democracy Left Behind: How Recent Education Reforms Undermine Local School Governance and Democratic Education. The press release states:
“Local control” has been a bedrock principle of public schooling in America since its earliest days, but a new report concludes the concept “has all but disappeared” in discussions of education policy.
The report, Democracy Left Behind: How Recent Education Reforms Undermine Local School Governance and Democratic Education, by Kenneth Howe and David Meens of the University of Colorado Boulder, examines the impact on democratic ideals of vanishing local control over education. The report examines the making of education policy as well as the decisions about what schools teach and how they teach it.
The authors also warn that current reform approaches are marginalizing community involvement. “Democratic reform should involve local stakeholders, especially marginalized members of society, because inclusion is a democratic value that increases not only the likelihood that policies will be just, but also the likelihood that reform will succeed,” Howe and Meens write. “Such inclusion also helps create the conditions in which all students can attain the democratic threshold.”
This report inspired me to release a portion of an upcoming chapter in an Urban Education Handbook. In the vein of local control, its a new approach to accountability. (Ever noticed that the Texas legislature hasn’t come up with a new idea for education policy in 20 years?) I am calling this reform Community Based-Accountability.
New Idea: Community-Based Accountability
What is a viable alternative to the current conception of accountability and high-stakes testing? A community empowered to be accountable to themselves and the nation. Educational policy where communities can democratically set the achievement and outcome goals that they desire. For some communities, maybe high-stakes test scores derived by the Pearson test score development business is the goal, or maybe a community might choose to focus on a new and more valuable set of outcomes.
In the current era, most states have reams of data that can be disaggregated in ways previously unthinkable. We can follow students from pre-kindergarten to any number of outcomes such as higher education, workforce and incarceration. Thus, community-based accountability could involve a process where superintendents, school boards, school staff, parents, students and community stakeholders set short-term and long-term goals based on their priorities. Maybe those goals are higher ACT and SAT scores. Or a community may choose to focus on a increasing the percentage of students enrolled and completing higher education. Perhaps the local priorities are employment and salary goals for their students. Each of these goals statements would serve as alternatives to the current intense focus on state-sponsored test scores. This new form of accountability would allow for a district to drive a locally based approach that focuses on the process of education for its one-year, five-year, and ten-year goals.
One example of the focus on the process of education instead of high-stakes testing outcomes is San Antonio’s Café College resource centers. Mayor Julian Castro funded these college-knowledge information centers because the community made higher education enrollment and graduation a priority. As a result, the city has placed its resources and will behind that goal. This focus on process rather than outcomes is a stark contrast to the current approaches observed in urban Texas high schools focused on high-stakes testing. Due to the current testing regime, high schools are spending their resources on double-blocking students in test-prep courses to focus on multiple choice worksheets for high-stakes exit exams instead of the arts, band, PE and other important courses that build 21st Century skills (Vasquez Heilig, 2011; Vasquez Heilig, Cole & Aguilar, 2010).
Notably, community-based accountability should appeal to political conservatives that espouse the ideals of local control. The state and federal government role would be relegated to calculating baselines for a set of 10-15 goals that communities set in a democratic process relative to the current levels of those particular outcomes. This accountability goal-setting would seek to influence the process of schooling choices in each community and would then motivate policymakers from communities to lobby state and federal governments for the resources to achieve its accountability goals rather than focusing on high-stakes testing results year to year. This turn of events in the frame of accountability would be novel because politicians (local, state and federal) would also be held accountable— they could be shamed and sanctioned— if resources to meet the community goals do not materialize. Accountability would become a two-way street.
Community-based accountability may also usher in a turn in community involvement in schools. In the US, our communities, our parents, our educators must see themselves as the solution rather than the problem. In conjunction with the aforementioned structural reforms that our nation continues to avoid with Band-Aids (such as vouchers, charters schools and Teach For America) this return to a community-based schooling approach would foment a multiple measures approach to community education outcomes derived by the community and driven by their desire to see their children succeed, rather than a continuing focus failed high-stakes testing and accountability policies persistently promoted in state capitols and Washington D.C.
Pingback: Trumpeting Local Accountability Idea for 5 years! – Cloaking Inequity
Pingback: Has community-based accountability been impactful for English Learners? – Cloaking Inequity
Pingback: Community-Based Reform and Accountability Measures for States and Communities | Cloaking Inequity
Pingback: Local Accountability is HAPPENING: New, Peer-Reviewed, and LIVE in D.C.! | Cloaking Inequity
Pingback: EdWeek Series Beyond Rhetoric: If Not a Bunch of Tests… Then What Instead? | Cloaking Inequity
Pingback: Education ‘Reformers’ Have Lost Their PR War, So Now What?
Pingback: Devil is in the Details: Teacher Tells Us What’s Up With Local Accountability | Cloaking Inequity
Pingback: Local Accountability and Astroturf: Local Control without the Local Control | Cloaking Inequity
Pingback: D.C. are you listening?: A New Local, Community-Based Approach for Accountability | Cloaking Inequity
If such a community based goal setting process had been in place when my children were in the local public elementary school, I would surely have become involved, along with my children, and we might all have had a better experience during those elementary school years. I certainly would have been closer to the daily life of the school and would perhaps have understood it better, and the teachers have understood my children better. Thus I like the concept tremendously.
Two questions, Julian:
1) What do you conceive is the maximum size of a school within which such a meeting and goal setting process could work? It reminds me of the direct democracy process still retained by some small New England villages.
2) Do you think that local and state funding could be allocated before the goals were formulated? It reminds me of the community control of schools tried, I think, in NYC some years ago, which didn’t work very well, and was abandoned, though I don’t remember why.
Still, a worthwhile idea. Is there any local trial of the process in the offing?
Pingback: A Word Cloud Analysis: A Bottom-Up Resolution to School Improvement | PHIGURITOWT
Pingback: From the Mailbag: Is Charter Legislation Inconsistent with Democratic Control of Schools? | Cloaking Inequity
Pingback: Help Has Arrived!: Banishing NCLB’s Narrow Paradigm | Cloaking Inequity
Pingback: Blackademics: Julian Vasquez Heilig @ KLRU PBS Feb 13, 2013 | Cloaking Inequity
Pingback: I am giddy!!: Community-Based Accountability | Cloaking Inequity
Pingback: I am giddy!!: Community-Based Accountability | Cloaking Inequity
What schools and communities are up against is the corporate model as proposed by Wall Street and foisted upon the country at large. That someone such as Michelle Rhee should have such political capital in school accountability (i.e., little to none for corporate-run charter schools) lends evident a federal move to “streamline” education by allowing accountability to be controlled by federal programs such as Race to the Top (RTTT) and its scaffolding program, No Child Left Behind.
The organizing forces of big business has lobbied their way into the decision making processes–federally, in state legislatures, and local, community school boards. It is only when parents, students, and teachers organize, with or without teacher union support, and push back against the corporate take over of public education that a community based accountability model might be installed.
Local control of public education is often rife with contentiousness of its own. As an educator of many years, I have witnessed local control of desired learning processes and outcomes to become exclusive. The goals developed by community based control need to be assigned so that all can benefit: for those students who are college bound, those who are focused on vocational and trade schools, as well as those who are aiming at certification programs which do not require secondary school diplomas. Community based accountability should be merely a framework for success through processes which lead to successful outcomes for all students, for all citizens of the community.
Segregating generations is not helpful. Those of the baby boomer generation (which actually covers two generations of cohorts) as well as members of generation X must unite to overcome the privatization of public schools subsidized by Wall Street, and government programs such as RTTT. With these forces comes value added measures which are designed to bust unions and pave the way for corporate control of teachers and teacher education programs. A true multiple measures approach based on community values can only be supplied when people approach the fight for our public schools with an undivided front.
The fight for our pubic schools and the common weal of our communities must be all inclusive in its approach. To imply that educational frameworks are generational, pitting the values of one against the other, weakens our mission toward truly free and expansive public schools in America. Community involvement, including the eradication of poverty (a topic for further discussion) and the overcoming of privatization forces will usher in community based accountability.
Pingback: Race and NCLB Waivers: Moving Around the Chairs? | Cloaking Inequity
This reminds me of the research we did in the effective migrant schools study a while back– when we asked a superintendent why his district was so effective with this population. His response was simple, but powerful (I’m paraphrasing, but I can get you the direct quote): “Other schools and districts are holding themselves accountable to the state– and they seem to obsess about the test, because they’re led to believe that test scores are the only thing that matters when it comes to accountability. In contrast, we hold ourselves accountable to students and parents first and foremost– and when you hold yoursleves accountable to students and parents, the test scores take care of themselves.” It really seemed as though he had flipped the script on this notion of accountability.