Fill out the brief form below for access to the free report.
Yes, Accountability Matters, and it Matters for Students, Teachers and Principals
This post originally appeared on HuffPost Education.
Twelve years later, where are we?
That's the question surrounding the school accountability movement, which came to the public's attention in a big way on January 8, 2002. President George W. Bush traveled that day to Ohio to sign the No Child Left Behind Act. Shortly after that, he went to Senator Ted Kennedy's hometown of Boston to discuss the law he and his bipartisan partner created.
The premise of No Child is as it sounds: Schools should not leave any child behind. Sounds simple, even Mom and apple pie-ish. But the principle is anything but flag-waving, sentimental stuff. It is fundamental to the economic and social mobility of every American child, not just the wealthy and the privileged. And it is central to whether our economy can develop new products, markets and higher rates of growth.
At the time of No Child's signing, there was a bipartisan consensus that schools should raise the expectations of their students, measure their growth annually and be held accountable for their students' progress -- or lack thereof. You had Democrats like Ted Kennedy and, yes, Republicans like George W. Bush signing onto this concept. And you had them at the state level, too. For example, going back to the 1980s, Democrats as well as Republicans in Texas backed higher standards for the state's campuses.
Now, a revolt has started to occur against school accountability. You see that in thepushback in states like Kansas and Connecticut against the Common Core benchmarks. (Common Core is the set of education standards many states have embraced over the last few years.) You saw it here in Texas last year, when both parties in the Legislature went after the system of tests that was set up to determine whether high school students actually understood the material in their core courses. And you see it on Capitol Hill, where very few members embrace the accountability push of the past.
In the future, we will have more time on this blog to discuss the ins-and-outs of that revolt. But here's what I hope we don't forget about why school accountability matters.
First, and this is the most critical point, evaluating schools helps students. That reality often gets lost in the discussion about testing. But, the fact is, assessing students annually allows principals and teachers to see whether a child is learning at the appropriate level.
Of course, schools have long tested students throughout the year. But the state exams that are a central requirement of No Child determine whether a child is grasping the material that the state itself wants them to understand.
If they are mastering the material, then that is great for the students and schools. If they are not, the tests help campuses see where a child needs help. They also provide states information about which schools need attention, even intervention. More than that, they give schools data about which groups of students are progressing and which are not.
Here is where accountability especially can help low-income students. By breaking data down into smaller "subgroups," educators can see which students are performing up to par and which are not. Equally important, parents can see how their children are stacking up against other students.
The second important point about an accountability system is that it can help teachers get the professional development they need to move their students ahead. This point also often gets overshadowed, but the spotlight on performance can allow them to improve. Accountability is not some way to punish teachers or a big game of gotcha. It is a way to help them improve their craft.
The same is true for principals, which is the third important point about accountability. Once a school's data is known, principals can argue for the resources to improve. Or they can point to the data to show why previous investments were worth the bucks.
To be sure, No Child and the accountability system it spawned have not worked perfectly. And they have not always been implemented as intended.
So, there are ways to refine No Child. Several runs have been made on Capitol Hill to do that, although sadly the bipartisan environment of 2002 is not there.
We will be talking more about the next leg of school accountability in this space in the weeks ahead. But, twelve years later, there is an essential point to remember: A good accountability system can help students, educators and principals.
William McKenzie is editorial director for the George W. Bush Institute, where he also serves as editor of The Catalyst: A Journal of Ideas from the Bush Institute.
Active in education issues, he co-teaches an education policy class at SMU’s Simmons School of Education and Human Development. He also participates in the Bush Institute’s school accountability project.
Before joining the Bush Institute, the Fort Worth native served 22 years as an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News and led the newspaper’s Texas Faith blog. The University of Texas graduate’s columns appeared nationwide and he has won a Pulitzer Prize and commentary awards from the Education Writers Association, the American Academy of Religion, and the Texas Headliners Foundation, among other organizations. He still contributes columns and essays for the Morning News and The Weekly Standard.
Before joining the News in 1991, he earned a master’s degree in political science from the University of Texas at Arlington and spent a dozen years in Washington, D.C. During that time, he edited the Ripon Forum.
McKenzie has served as a Pulitzer Prize juror, on the board of a homeless organization, and on governing committees of a Dallas public school. He also is an elder of the First Presbyterian Church in Dallas, where he lives with his wife and their twin children.Full Bio
Learning from Bold Investments
As we implement our Principal Talent Management Framework with four school districts across the country, we are quickly learning and adapting our strategy.
Setting the Example: Bush Institute's Principal Talent Management Framework
The Chicago Public Education Fund's Principal Quality Community of Practice used the George W. Bush Institute’s Principal Talent Management Framework as a guidepost to diagnose areas of improvements in school leadership.
Bush Institute's Eva Myrick Chiang Participates in the SCORE Institute on School Leadership
Last week, Bush Institute's Director of Research and Evaluation Eva Myrick Chiang participated in a panel discussion on school leadership hosted by State Collaborative on Reforming Education (SCORE) in Nashville, TN. “Even when you give a talented principal the most effective training, we still need school districts to improve the way they recruit, selection, and support those principals so that we can retain them in their schools for as long as possible,” said Chiang during the discussion. Based on the conversation, a few important themes emerged: Researchers have found that effective principal preparation programs have some common characteristics including rigorous admission requirements, partnerships with districts, and meaningful residency experiences. High-quality programs also collect and use data constantly to find opportunities to improve. Principals are not always placed in schools where they will have the greatest impact. Districts can use data about s