From Accreditation to Accountability

Abstract

Except for the military, Americans devote more resources to education than to any other activity we undertake in common. Nearly 15% of all tax dollars support public schools. We depend on schools to narrow social and economic inequalities and to ensure that all youth contribute to the health of our democracy and the productivity of our economy. Americans generally agree that schools should produce graduates with a balanced set of abilities--not only in academic subjects but in their social skills and work ethic, the fulfillment of citizenship obligations, in physical and emotional health, in the arts, and in their preparation for skilled work. recent survey confirmed Americans' commitment to this balance (Rothstein and Jacobsen 2006). The public has a right to expect educators to pursue these ambitions competently and to spend effectively the funds entrusted to them for these ends. An effective accountability system requires youth development institutions to demonstrate to the public's satisfaction that they're pursuing goals established through democratic processes, by using the most effective strategies available. The design of such accountability has become the focus of public debates about education. The U.S. has adopted accountability policies based almost exclusively on standardized test scores. diverse and bipartisan coalition of Americans has bemoaned this policy (see A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education at www.boldapproach.org) because narrow test-based accountability plans can't possibly accomplish their stated intent--to tell the states and nation whether schools and related public institutions are performing satisfactorily and to indicate where improvements are required. Indeed, by creating incentives for educators to shift effort and resources away from other goal areas and toward instruction in reading and math exclusively, such accountability has undermined schools' mission to also raise achievement in other academic areas and in the social, behavioral, and civic goals. SCHOOL BOARDS AND ACCOUNTABILITY The United States has always had formal democratic accountability in education. Communities elect school boards, or mayors, who appoint superintendents who, in turn, appoint other staff and teachers to carry out policies set by the elected officials. Voters can and do re-elect or replace board members and mayors. But we've become skeptical that elected school boards can hold educators accountable for raising performance for all students in all states and localities. Partly, the dissatisfaction is unavoidable. As school districts grew, elected board members found it more difficult to judge whether schools were performing well. Most superintendents now supervise such large organizations that they can't themselves evaluate principals' or teachers' effectiveness. Elected board members, especially those on the first step of a political career ladder, may be more interested in burying bad news about schools than in correcting problems, and so they defer to educators' ways of doing things. The mere fact that school board members must seek a mandate from voters in elections has provided an inadequate assurance that boards will hold educators accountable for satisfactory student achievement. Yet, accountability for outcomes was the original inspiration for school boards. In 1642, the Massachusetts colonial legislature required town selectmen (councilmen) to check on parents and fine those who failed to teach their children to read and to understand both religious and secular law. Today, however, school board members spend virtually no time evaluating educational outcomes; most board time is devoted to administrative matters like buying school sites or approving insurance policies, addressing new state or federal regulations, or voting on employee compensation alternatives. Forgotten in this business has been a focus on the goals of education and a process for monitoring their achievement. …