A Call to Rethink School Accountability
Texas has been at the forefront of “accountability” for years. Most would agree that our system has resulted in substantial academic progress – especially among our most challenging student groups. Almost everyone, however, also recognizes that our over-reliance on testing and the “high stakes” rating system has now become counterproductive.
So how do we make changes that continue to demand academic achievement while recognizing that there is more to a good school than test results? I believe it is time to rethink the system. Since I object to folks who complain without offering solutions, I’ll offer one just to start the conversation. Here goes – - -
I believe we need to broaden the parameters used in our rating system. I propose that a different matrix be developed for various types of schools. A different matrix could be used for elementary, middle, high schools and districts. The objective should be to assess more than just test results by moving from the one word ranking – “acceptable”, “recognized”, etc., to a three letter system – “AAA”, “DBC”, etc. I propose that the first letter continue the emphasis on objective test results. The second letter could provide a rating based on financial matters – efficiency, transparency, financial soundness, etc. The third letter could reflect what I’ll call “involvement and success” parameters. Parental and community involvement, student participation in UIL, college credit and A.P. success, graduation rates, career/technical preparation and remediation rates could all be factors for the third letter.
While I will post a variety of thoughts, I want to be clear that I’m not entrenched on any particular concept or matrix. I just think it’s time to begin a discussion. To that end, I’ve opened this blog. I invite educators, parents, taxpayers and any other interested party to post and comment on the blog. I reserve the right to remove posts or pull it down if it becomes negative or overtly political. Please be respectful of opinions, be brief, be concise and focus on suggestions – not just problems with the present system.
First I would like to say that the state tests have in no way improved my children’s
education over the last 10 years, but instead added a mixture of stress and tedium to their school days.
How to improve the system? Test students on basic skills – math and reading only.
Don’t each child every year, especially when they are passing with high scores. Instead use a scientific sampling to test students, rather than the whole school – we could do so much more with scientific sampling to get a snapshot of performance, while reducing costs, hassles and stress involved with giving tests to the entire school population.
Allow teachers to give diagnostic individual assesments and use the results
only to help the child learn. Look at AP and IB scores, tests that children are already taking. Drastically reduce the overall number of standardized tests, and remove
the high stakes consequences for schools and students. Utilize existing national exams such as NAEP, SAT and ACT to judge how schools and children are performing. Drop the EOC’s, which have gone way overboard in terms of testing burden. Don’t pay a company hundreds of millions of dollars to write and score new tests every year – this has become a cash cow for testing companies.
Allow teachers to be professionals. Allow teachers to write the final exam for
their own classroom.
Our state has been on a path of an ever accelerated and increasing testing burden
for children and schools for almost 30 years. The testing system has now taken on a life of it’s own and has become a monster that has taken over public education
in Texas. It is time to reverse course and get this expensive testing monstrosity
out of our public schools.
Rep. Aycock and others,
First and foremost I believe in accountability, especially in the public education arena as it is a means to ensure that the “soft bigotry of low expectations” does not permeate the organization. However, the current bureaucratic structure of accountability is expensive, unecessary, and stiffling to innovation. This structure assumes that all districts are “waiting for superman” and if those who design it say it is not, then they are intentionally chosing to be very wasteful of taxpayer dollars. To continue to test students in districts that year in and year out meet the standard is absurd and is diverting dollars to efforts that will not improve any outcomes. My sons have been taking these tests since 3rd grade and I believe my graduate son was only twice not commended and my 8th grade son has been commended every year. Why are we testing them? What do we think we are going to learn through this testing process? I would argue that we will learn nothing, and my community is making the same case. I am also concerned that the fear of failure on the part of district personnel, whether it be teachers, administrators, or school boards is creating an ever increasing test preparation culture that is failing to meet the needs of our students and the expectations of our communities.
The State of Texas has a clear and inherent interest in the productivity of our school districts, but can that interest not be met with outcomes seen in our graduate, rather than requiring testing throughout the system. Why not instead establish outcomes such as graduation rates, a combination of college readiness with CTE certifications, SAT scores, and perhaps testing in limited and data focused areas only. For districts that fail to meet the established standards, have an intervention strategy for that district. This type of accountability structure would ensure that districts are teaching the required curriculum, that the students are college and/or career ready, that our students are graduating, and would cost significantly less than the current structure, and would still look out for the students in districts that were not getting the job done. It would remove the fear in the system about the annual testing and thus encourage more innovation in our processes.
In my experiences with business leaders I have learned that they are seeking from our graduates, something our testing system cannot provide. They are seeking young people who can collaborate well, they are looking for young people who can communicate well, and they are looking for curious thinkers (ask inquisitive questions, problem solve, and can adapt their thinking). Our current accountability structure stifles opportunities to practice and learn these skills of collaboration, curiousity, and communication by focusing our instruction on memorizing more and more content. As an example, a 9th grade student, who just took her EOC in geography, told me that one question asked the student to look at a picture of a Japanese bathhouse and indicate which religion it is most closely associated with. I think it is good to touch that content, but to memorize it for a test serves no purpose and I can assure you that it will be forgotten within a year. (I have seen many an example of students passing the test and then forgetting the information) In the future, should this student need this information, she will be able to find it quickly via a google search and her company will make certain she learns the necessary cultural issues before going to Japan. I would rather she spend time collaborating with others on various issues of Japanes culture, explore areas of interest and then present them to an audience.
The National Assessment of Educator Progress (NAEP) might have a model that, if followed, would go far to solve some parent/educator angst while also provide data for accountability. The NAEP assessment only tests a sampling of students then extrapolates the results across the district/state assessed. If Texas would follow the sampling approach for accountability, the state would still have the data it needs to assign accountability ratings without the districts having to be consumed with testing. Districts could then decide how best to test/teach students and use internal data to promote students. Tests like SAT and ACT already determine college readiness. Saying that the state assessment must also establish whether or not a student is ready for college seems redundant.
It is time to consider moving toward a more diagnostic approach to accountability. Think about what is included in an annual health examination. The patient receives an overall “your health is good, but you need to: lower your cholesterol, watch your weight, possibly take medications. .” Feedback is provided that shows the results of tests and whether or not they are in an expected range (do they meet the standard?). Out-of-range measures are highlighted for improvement. If they are improving but not up to standard, they are flagged for follow-up. If they are not meeting standards and not improving, a discussion of possible interventions takes place.
So a summative grade (ABCs, 4 out of 5 stars, a number on a index) for districts and campuses is warranted but what goes into the summary label needs to be explicated. Did the measure meet the standard? Is it improving? Create a report that sets priorities for improvement in the order of: does not meet the standard and is not improving; does not meet the standard and is improving; or meets the standard but is declining.
Taking this approach allows a wide variety of measures (not just test results) to be evaluated and for different measures to be used depending on the entity (elementary, middle, high, K-12). This type of accountability system still must be standardized and automated at the state level, as evaluating over 1,000 districts and 8,000 campuses on multiple measures cannot be accomplished accurately and quickly otherwise, but a report clearly delineating areas of achievement and areas in need of improvement should lead directly to district and campus improvement plans developed and implemented at the local level.
Hey JDA,
We both know that the system needs to be a comprehensive accountability system that is not just centered on testing. I think it would be a good idea to focus more directly on LOCAL testing. Maybe do a split between local accountability and state accountability. For instance local accountability would count towards 60% of the standard. If we really want to be like the Finnish this is the best option that still allows for the politicians to push accountability. The Finnish only take a National Matriculation exam at the end of their equivalency of High School. This would also give our teachers more freedom to teach their own lessons and individualize according to the students that they have in class. Right now the system is so strict that teachers cant even reteach a lesson that the kids may or may not have gotten because there is no time. Some concepts take longer to teach and the current system doesnt facilitate this.
I think this is great by the way.
Don’t punish us for our lowest “grade”! If a student makes 20 As, 2 Bs and 1 C, would you consider that student an “A Student” or a “C Student”…the way the system has always worked, they would be considered a “C Student”. That is not fair! I’ll give you an example. My district was measured on 21 indicators…we were exemplary on all but 2, we didn’t qualify for any type of exemption on those, so our rating was “acceptable”. A neighboring district was measured on 17 indicators, was recognized on 15, was acceptable on 2 (but qualified for exemptions) – they are rated “recognized”…in 19 of our indicators, our scores were 7-10% points higher than their’s…does that make sense – they have a better rating than us?
I am currently in school to receive my masters in elementary education. I have volunteered, worked ,and currently observing classrooms for my requirements. I was living in Lampasas Tx and now living in Phoenix Az. The problems with education are national not just one state versus a different state. We need to come up with a national solution. I believe we need to have 4 exams and having them average out versus just one test at the end of the year. The test can be based on the curriculum learned up to that point like a final exam.
I do believe there needs to be changes to tenured teachers. It is like the government employees that you can’t get rid of the bad one’s. Teachers get burned out and start to lose the reason they started teaching. This is normal in most jobs but eyes are on teachers. You can’t have certain pictures on your face book or have a private life because a parent may be offended.
Teachers are held to a different standard but at the same time are required to do tons with very little pay. Each part of the education system needs to be looked at and changed. The education is not a one problem deal but mutiple problems on top of another.
Justin, I agree – no tenured teachers. The education should be just as competitive as any other successful business. Skilled teachers will rise to the challenge, those who are not interested in staying competitive will be forced out. A force of strong educators will bring dignity and respect back to this profession. I think we can talk better pay when we hold us more accountable for performance. Right now it seems as though we want to be paid more, regardless, yet we do not want to be held accountable for the products of our labor. We are all counting on each other to do our best with the students in the time we have been given, when we do not we make it tough on the students, and on every other educator down the line. If we were a car assembly plant, I am not sure that we could consistently create a reliable vehicle. I may be the best tire mounter in the world, but if the steering wheel guy/gal didn’t do their job, the vehicle will not make it down the road. Crude example, I know but I am just adamant that we can do better, despite the fact that we don’t have uniform “parts” to work with. Happy studies- hope you have finals out of the way this semester!
Please call me Justine…I am studying online with University of Phoenix so I will be in school all year long. This program works wonderful with my writing, raising my daughter, and work. New Jersey has some new tenure laws and to be honest 25 years may be to long for some teachers. I hope we can get back to basics. We have taken God out of the schools. There is no discipline in the schools. I will have my masters in the fall of 2013 and teaching soon after. My daughter will be in school a couple years. I understand that the states have the right over the schools but there has to be something done. The NCLB policy has caused a lot of problems with the state tests. How do we get back to basics?
My apologies, I have been responding on a smart phone that auto- corrects; it auto-corrected your name. I understand your points. The tests can definitely be improved, but NCLB/ESEA was a necessary “evil” (if you will). There were so many disparities between student groups before NCLB. Legislation and the testing has helped to expose some of those disparities, so that we may better educate all children. It certainly is a a slippery slope. I hate that the testing has caused negative publicity for NCLB/ESEA because the spirit of the law is good, and a lot of good has come from it. I think what Rep. Aycock intends is to help us better implement this legislation and figure out how this needs to look in Texas. Again, very best wishes in your pursuits – sounds like you’re on your way!
I have a solution. We can have little tests during the school year but not in the way it has been given. The test would be along the lines of a regular test to gauge the lessons such as final exams so to speak. The teachers can see if there is improvement. The adminstration can tell if a teacher needs to change direction. This needs to be a national solution. The NCLB legislation is awesome but just needs to be tweeked.
Representative Aycock, we certainly appreciate this opportunity for input.
What we’re doing right: I would like to start with some things that are right.
(1) Student accomodations: First of all, the changes that have been made to the accountability system involving student accomodations is much more intuitive, and places more emphasis on local data gathering and decision-making. By improving the accomodations procedures, the state will undoubtedly reduce artificial labeling of students for the sole sake of testing needs. Thank you for that.
(2) Good riddance to exit-level TAKS: Having worked at a high school, with students who failed one or more portions of their exit-level TAKS, it was often difficult to pin-point at that late date where the gaps in the students’ knowledge existed, and how we could address them in time for graduation. It was a bad idea to lump several years of science, math, social studies, and ELA into four subject area tests with so much riding on them. My heart hurt for students who would get down to the last administration of one subject area exit-level TAKS, that would ultimately determine whether or not they would graduate with peers; students who were a fraction of a question from the passing mark. All of this is to say that the idea of testing after each subject is good in many ways, because it allows us to address gaps in learning as they occur.
(3) Yes to accountability: We must keep high standards for our professionals, and for our students. This is just good stewardship of tax-payer dollars. Our organizations are data-rich because of the system of assessments we have in place. This has certainly given us a “crystal ball” (so to speak) that allows to target instruction to students in ways we have never been able to previously.
Ways we can improve:
(1) Value-added: There should certainly be more focus on value-added, and student growth. While this concept is written into the legislation (Sec. 39.023 c-1), in practice this is not happening. It appears that instructionally, we must acknowledge the individual needs of students, and differentiate accordingly, yet accountability is sure to provide a rigid mark that all students must meet. If growth were truly considered you would better see the learning that takes place year-to-year. Students with tremendous strikes against them, may overcome outstanding obstacles throughout an academic year, only to be defeated by a floating mark that they simply did not reach. This is particularly the case for our English Language Learners.
(2) College-readiness: An assessment that measures college-readiness, which we as LEAs so painstakingly strive to meet, should be considered by our public post-secondary institutions, but it is not. I realize that the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board assists in the creation and assessment of the college-readiness standards; however, these tests and their data, is not even considered by colleges. I know this first hand, from being a doctoral fellow at a public university. Colleges are only interested in the end result: high school graduate, or non graduate. Please create assessments that will be valued and considered by our colleges. Bring worth the “college-readiness”.
(3) Labels: Get rid of the labels; keep the acknowledgements. This tiered system of labeling schools and districts is counter-productive. I would be happy to share how it can be that a district with a poor label has truly outperformed districts with excellent labels. It all has to do with student groups. Some districts with homogeneous student populations do not have enough student groups to “count”. They may be doing a very poor job of educating their Hispanic, or Economically Disadvantaged students, but mask this under an “exemplary” rating. Conversely, districts with high populations of Hispanic, Economically Disadvantaged, etc. may be doing a better job of educating them, yet merit an “unacceptable” or “acceptable” rating. It is smoke and mirrors, and has caused a lot of public distrust in education, and in our community schools.
(4) Start early: Though the legislative purpose in accountability is to ensure that we have high school graduates, whom are college-ready; the emphasis should not be disproportionately placed on the high schools. There needs to be more attention to younger students, and they quality of education they are receiving. If the students have managed to limp through the system, it is often bandaids that high schools are placing on missing limbs, simply to get the students graduated. Whereas, if the maiming had been identified and addressed much sooner, the students would have a better chance of surviving. As you know, our opportunity for impact of a child from 6-11 is exponentially greater than attempting to reach a 16-18 year old. Starting early means mandatory assessments of early literacy; rather than optional, locally adopted assessments that do not translate from campus to campus.
(5) Educator quality: A quality educator is the power player in this game. We need top-notch educators; stricter standards; more flexibility for educational leaders in dismissal. A student accountability system should never be discussed in separation from an educator accountability system. We are responsible for providing these children an education, for leveling the ills and inequities of society; and when we fail to do this, the students, rather than us, stand to lose.
(6) Fund us or free us: Please create a funding system in which we may be able to help ourselves. With the current system, we are completely at the mercy of the state. In San Antonio v. Rodriguez (1973) was an example of the Supreme Court’s hands-off stance in ensuring equity of funding, since education is not a fundamental right protected by our U.S. Constitution. We are counting on our state. According to the Texas Constitution, education is a benefit to a free society: Texas State Constitution, established education as a benefit to a free society. “A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the presentation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools” (Constitution of the State of Texas, 1876). Please make provisions for adequate and equitable funding. This doesn’t mean we all get the same amount, this means we get enough to educate our unique student populations. I know the school finance system is fluid, and a work-in-progress; however, proper funding is cornerstone to student success and opportunity.
Thank you again for asking, I am sure I will think of a 7, 8, 9, 10 later…this is just quickly what I was anxious to share immediately!
WOW!! Thanks for a very well thought out comment. A lot to digest but very helpful.
Fund us or free us…I like that. It would look good on a flag with the Goliad cannons.
(lol David) Come and Take It! Man, I love this state. I am very proud that we are all able to work together to come up with solutions for a system we are all proud of. This is our state, our kids, and despite current issues, I am proud that we are keeping education “at home” (i.e. not adopting CCS). Texas believes in this system, and I have every faith that they will indeed “fund” it.
“They will fund it.” I wish I could share your optimism. They haven’t even mustered the common decency to acknowledge or factor in funding differences when they label us good or bad schools. They seem to be married to the convenient pretense that teaching is the only variable worthy of critique.
Thank you, Rep. Aycock. Probably nothing you haven’t heard or pondered at some point, but it feels great to voice these few items.
Rep. Aycock, thanks for starting this blog. Hopefully, there will be a productive exchange of ideas here. Here are my suggestions for starting over and re-vamping the education process:
First, re-vamp the legislative process. We spend too much time in Austin tweaking the one-size-fits-all machine with no focus on the ultimate goals. The goals should be high graduation and attendance rates, high performance on standardized tests, low dropout and retention rates. You can likely add a few more universally acceptable goals to that brief list. But let’s make the list and let’s all agree on the list. Then, and this is the hard part, let’s remove all the legislative barriers from the road and let educators, students and parents get to work accomplishing these goals. Remediate and penalize districts that chronically fail to measure up, reward those who do succeed. Most importantly, stop passing legislation that clogs up the educational process.
Second, we have to flip the educational model. Right now, the time component is fixed and the degree of mastery is variable. Kids are in school from late August to late May or early June. Some excel, some get by, others fail. Let’s flip that model. Let’s require mastery at 80% and keep kids in the same class until they can grasp and master their subject. Some kids will complete a class and move on in 6-8 weeks, others in a semester, other it may take a whole year.
Third, fund public education adequately or just kill it completely. Bleeding public education to death slowly, which is what is happening right now, is cowardly. If the state can’t fund it adequately, then return taxing authority to the local districts so they can fund themselves. Robin Hood will re-distribute the grossest inequities there.
Well, that’s the tip of my philosophical iceberg. I will have some additional thoughts another day.
Again, thanks for initiating this discussion.
David Webb, CFO Deer Park ISD
Thank-you so much for creating this blog and initiating the discussion on school accountability. It seems as though politicians and taxpayers want to hold teachers accountable for student learning, which is currently measured only by test scores. Never mind the fact that each student has many factors/variables that cannot be controlled; all students are expected to fit into a standardized mold and be measured against a common set of standards. Ofcourse, I am not in favor of lowering standards, I just feel that this constant emphasis on accountability places a ridiculous amount of pressure on teachers to teach to the test. I think it is time for us to realize that there are many important things that students learn that can’t always be measured on a standardized test. Collections of work samples, use of extended projects, performances, exhibitions and portfolios are all examples of authentic measures of student learning. Unfortunately, due to an insatiable thirst for data, schools rarely use these tools. It’s just too hard to standardize the outcome and attach a numerical score to make student-student comparisons. Why must we have elaborate and costly accountability systems for our schools? If anyone should be held accountable, let it be the politicians. It was their decision, after all, to spend $92 million on the new STAAR test this year. We don’t need more testing, we need more teachers in the classroom and they need our support. And teachers and students don’t need to be rewarded or punished through the improper use of test scores. Please, no more high-stakes attached to test scores. It’s hurting our kids!
For all the talk of school accountability, one thing is clear: very few are happy with public education in our state. Teacher and parent groups decry over-testing and reduced funding, while watchdogs and reformers complain about over-taxing and underperforming.
In political terms, accountability is a burden to some and a rally cry for others. But to average Texans, “accountability” has become empty rhetoric. Amidst the test scores, funding formulas and transparency measures is a far more important metric; whether or not our K-12 system is getting the next generation career and college ready. By all accounts, the answer is a resounding no.
We know from our community colleges and universities that too many students are taking remedial math and reading courses after graduating high school. And we also know from employers that there is a lack of skilled laborers entering the workforce. Many manufacturers and other trade professions simply cannot find enough qualified help.
This all goes to show that our definition of accountability simply cannot stop at neat metrics, like graduation rates or test scores. It must include whether or not our kids are equipped for life after high school.
In my area of Texas, the Eagle Ford Shale has created over 48,000 jobs in the last year. By 2021, it is expected to generate 117,000 full time positions. Many of those are directly related to the exploration and extraction of mineral resources. These jobs are well-paying, stable and don’t require a four-year degree. However, they do require trade skills. The $90,000 a year truck driver is a reality in South Texas.
The Eagle Ford Shale is just one example of where having a robust and rigorous trade skills program would improve accountability. Our K-12 (and even collegiate) curriculum cannot exist in a vacuum, but must reflect the economic realities of today’s marketplace. A lasting accountability will not merely mitigate the tired arguments of today’s activists, but will give students, teachers and families true value in education.
ANN you have brought up a very excellent point.
The education system that we have in place is gear so that all the students can become doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists, business man/woman, etc.. It is geared so that everyone goes to a 4-year university and get a “high paying or socially acceptable” job. Trade professions are seen as the “failures” or “undesirable” jobs in this system. This has to change! I know that parents want what is best for their children; but as ANN mentioned, there is nothing wrong with being a truck driver and $90,000 pay for a job that does not require a 4-year degree is double what I get paid with a 4-year degree. If someone does something he/she enjoys, that person can earn a substantial paycheck because of the dedication that will go into it. Not every student should be required to take high level sciences or mathematics if the career they have chosen does not require it and schools should not be “graded” on how many students have gone the “higher” route.
Our current educational system is not even preparing students for college (which is their main goal) and I strongly believe this occurs because we are “babying” them too much. What accountability (the way it is set up right now) has done is getting teachers to “fluff” grades so they can get a higher percent of students passing. It seems that whether the student learned or not is irrelevant. Some students do need a form of accomdations, but as LMORGAN13 (read her post, excellent suggestions!) said there are a lot of students that are accomdated who don’t really need it and it is not only done for test results but also from parents bullying schools into it with threats of lawsuits. The responsibility must be shared with the student and parents, not rely solely on the educator or the school. I should not have to get an 11th grade student who can not do simple algebra or has no idea how to write a proper paper. If a student has not learned certain skills than that student should not pass.
I strongly believe that instead of using graduation/failure rate to “grade” a school, we should use college readiness with a combination of “trade” readiness (that students will have the necessary skills for a particular trade or general employment). It seems that we have forgotten we are not all created equal. Not everyone wants to go to college and become doctors, business woman/man, engineers… and those individuals are not wrong or any less for it.
First, let me say that I have always found Representative Aycock to be an incredibly thoughtful man and he should be applauded and commended for fostering open, honest, and respectful dialogue on this important issue. I may not always agree with him, but always respect him.
Second, while I was once a very strong proponent of the accountability system, I think the current system has created far too many unintended and negative outcomes. More of the same will not improve the system. Further, I would suggest that we change our stance from accountability to monitoring. The countries that outperform the US typically have no school or district accountability systems or only weak ones which don’t resemble the systems of command and control that we have created in this country. That being said, we do need evidence and monitoring to help weaker schools and districts become stronger and to ensure the state is providing the necessary resources and supports for districts to be successful n meeting the expectations set forth by the Legislature.
Third, since Representative Aycock asked about changes to the accountability system, I will provide some suggestions, some of which have probably not received enough thought and certainly warrant more scrutiny. However, my thoughts might be good places to start a conversation. If we are to continue with accountability systems in Texas, the first step would be to adopt multiple levels of accountability. We need an accountability system for the legislature, Governor, SBOE, TEA, and district leaders.
The accountability system for the legislature would focus on the extent to which the legislature accomplished the following tasks:
Fiscal Accountability System for Texas Legislation in Education (FASTLE)
Allocate enough money per pupil to ALL districts in an amount sufficient to meet the expectations set forth by the legislature.
This would be determined through adequacy studies conducted by a panel of five nationally recognized experts. For any district taxing at the maximum allowable tax rate and not generating enough funds to meet expectations as determined by the panel of experts, then the district would not participate in the district or school accountability system.
Allocate money in a fair and equitable manner, including money provided through an biannually updated cost-of-education index (CEI) to ensure all districts competed on an equal playing field..
This would be determined by a panel of five nationally recognized experts. If the system was not considered equitable, then any district in the bottom 25% of schools would be exempted from the state’s district and school accountability system. The weights for the weighted average daily attendance (WADA) should be based on the findings of the adequacy studies. The studies would estimate the amount of money necessary to educate a student to achieve particular outcomes as measured by a low-stakes assessment or an assessment for which no teaching to the test could corrupt the scores.
Require all individuals entering a classroom as a teacher of record to have a minimum of eight weeks of training in addition to at least 3 weeks of some form of clinical training.
Currently, low-performing schools are disproportionately staffed by teachers that are obtaining certification through alternative means, many of which have less than a month of preparation before entering the classroom. This will likely require additional state funding for stipends for teachers in high-need areas (STEM, bilingual education, special education) that agree to teach in high-need schools as well as an appropriate school finance system that includes an appropriate CEI.
Allocate sufficient funds to TEA and education service centers to accomplish tasks set forth by teams of experts and educators in the field.
TEA should not only function as a necessary compliance monitor, but should also provide a number of other important duties. Some of these duties should include close monitoring of educator preparation programs; provision of useful and timely data; high quality professional development; evaluation of policies and strategies; research on important topics; facilitation and leadership for district improvement processes; and other tasks that create a more forward looking agency rather than one focused tightly on simply compliance. Some would argue that TEA already does many of these tasks, but others would argue that they are not done very well, there is little quality control, and efforts are often driven by political and ideological agendas rather than research on best practices. This will require that TEA become less of a political agency driven by ideology and become an agency based more on independent research, quality assistance, and leadership. As such, the Commissioner would have to be selected in a different manner rather than the current gubernatorial appointment.
A panel of experts and educators would review TEA annual reports and outside evaluations of efforts as well as consider survey results of leaders from districts, schools, region service centers, and preparation programs.
FASTLE Report Card
A final panel of experts and educators would consider all available evidence (which would be made available to the public on a website) and assign a grade for each area and a final, overall grade. Categories could include less than satisfactory, satisfactory, or exemplary. If the overall grade was less than satisfactory, then the state’s district and state accountability systems would cease to operate until the rating improved to satisfactory.
In sum, the purpose would be to ensure that the Legislature is providing the necessary resources for all schools and districts to succeed. It is foolhardy and perhaps even immoral to hold schools and districts accountable (or anyone else, for that matter) accountable for their results if they are not given the proper resources and support to complete on an equal playing field.
If there is interest, I will work my way down the list and ultimately arrive at suggestions for a new district and school accountability system.
Ed, you should be in charge!
If student outcomes were truly the real goal of our Lege, then shared accountability would be demanded by all from the beginning. You find and plug all the holes if you want to save the ship.
But if the goal is for public school teachers to go down with the ship, then you beat them for not doing more while you enlist zero consequences (or even acknowledge) gaping holes they didn’t create, like funding inequities, bad policies, etc.
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/05/yong_zhao_in_conversation.html
please check out our Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Texas-Parents-Opt-Out-of-State-Tests/121316371311714?ref=tn_tnmn
And please involve teachers when you create the new accountability system. They are the experts.
As far as accountability, it’s tough to rate according to things other than cold, hard test scores. Other factors can be extremely subjective, and depend a lot on who is making the judgement. I like the testing scores, but know it’s not the be-all, end-all in the rankings.
However, here are a few of my ideas for schools. A lot would be deemed impossible…but why not go for them?
1) Give parents the right to choose which schools they want their children to attend. Give them a voucher for the same amount–public OR private and let the free market and good ‘ole competition create schools that would blow the current admin-heavy, slow moving behemoths of education out of the water! If this seems impossible, give a percentage of what a public school education would cost to parents…even a 75% or 50% voucher would in many cases produce a better education than what public schools offer. Personally, I’d love to be an entrepreneur that would compete against other schools.
2) Flex-hours. Allow the students and parents choose what time they’d like to start and end school days, and even school years. Let some teachers decide what hours they would prefer to teach and try to match their schedules and the students’ schedules as well as possible. Not everyone would get what they want, but it would be better for many. If you like it how it is now, then keep the same schedule…but allow others to make the choice. Also, along the same lines, increase the chance for intermittent home-school and travel for the kiddos.
3) Life/business classes. Why the heck wouldn’t books like, “Think and Grow Rich,” or, “The Richest Man in Babylon,” be taught in a high school class? Business leaders in the community or other successful people could be recruited–for free–to help instruct the classes. Also, nationally-known speakers like Anthony Robbins, Dave Ramsey, or Stephen Covey…etc. could teach assemblies of students life skills via tele-conference or DVD lessons. I’m shocked by how financially unprepared students who have just spent 13 years in school are upon graduation (Oh yes, I was one of them). Why aren’t these taught? It’s really inexcusable.
Personally, I think ideas 2) and 3) and MANY, MANY more would surface if we could get the first idea in practice. It’s time for our State, and our Country to have the best schools in the world, and these ideas could help greatly.
Thanks, Mr. Aycock for this forum. I’ve worked with a school district before as a community volunteer, and they pay some lip service to new ideas, but rarely do anything about them. Thank you!
I’ll politely disagree with the statement that “it’s tough to rate according to things other than cold, hard test scores”. From the research perspective, aggregate test scores are really only useful as comparative measures, and speak very little to pedagogical skill or school effectiveness in their current form. Student scores are strongly influenced by non-school factors (if you’re curious, I can point to the relevant literature in the economics of education). School districts that serve populations that are highly impoverished, with high levels of single-caregiver households, high population densities will necessarily have lower test scores, on average, than school districts that serve wealthy, stable families. Any school rankings or assessments should take into account the communities that the schools serve. Context is important. I think that school test scores simply need to be weighted to account for the effects (positive and negative) of the home environments of the children. You’d get a much more accurate gauge of whether a school is “successful” given its particular population without adding any new measures for our already overburdened with paperwork schools/teachers/admis to be responsible for reporting to the state. New measures take time and effort. You should talk to administrators before you decide on recommendations, because every new test, every new measure, takes time and money away from teachers being able to properly educate students.
As a teacher, I am not against accountability. The biggest complaint I have is how students are school districts are compared. First, students are not tracked on their growth, but they are compared from year to year and judged in that manner. Comparing two different groups of students is completely unfair, the whole apples to oranges theory. If students are showing growth from year to year, that shows the school is doing its job. This is not the case with the current system. One year a teacher may have a very strong class and the scores soar. The next year, the class may be weaker. The teacher didn’t change, the curriculum didn’t change, the class did. However, the teacher then looks like he/she didn’t do their job. Wrong. Also, schools should be placed in categories according to things such as size, demographic, at risk students/economically disadvantaged, and given an accountability standard based on how they do compared to schools like them. One can’t expect a small, rural, poor school to have the same results as a large urban wealthy school district. Again, I am not against accountablilty, just how it is doled out.
There has to be some practicallity built into the assessment system has any legislator really contemplated the implementation of testing? The time and opportunity cost of executing the STAAR or TAKS? There is an incredible deteriation of teaching the objectives when high stakes testing has such a huge impact on a teachers performance and time, especially when certain aspects they have no control over such as more kids in the class, transfers students, students that don’t speak the language reveal themselves…sure these children need to be educated and I don’t think any teacher isn’t up for the challenge but you can’t expect a child who has come from another State or shows up not speaking the language to do well on any assessment and that impacts the teachers “performance”. What is a true reflective measure that is the question we should be asking and I think we all need to start from that point before we start to decide what metrics are used and how rankings will be assigned. What are we trying to accomplish and whose behavior are we trying to change/improve with testing, the child, the teacher or perhaps the parents?
I’m OK with the concept of multiple grades, but you might add another grade that consist of a walk-thru observation by a team of peers (teachers/admin) and community members. Ultimately every school should be held accountable to their community, not necessarily to the state or nation. Second, Your first grade that is supposed to measure “objective test results” should not be based on a one-time high-stakes test; students should be measured by growth over the entire school year. There is a company that has a developed a “smart test” that asked questions based on how the previous question was asked (similar to the GRE). The test takes 25 minutes and can be given multiple times during the year to determine each students progress and where the students need help. We can develop a matrix to determine the amount of growth a student should make. Anyone can have a bad day – this concept in testing avoid it and help us look over a years time and not just at one test/one day.
Love the idea of a test that isn’t one-time, high stakes!!!! AND short!!! These end of course tests take up WAY to much time and WAY too many days of the school year! Next year will be even worse since the testing will also be required for three weeks during the fall and four weeks (including the last round of TAKS testing) during the spring. Basically, twos entire months of school will now be dedicated to testing–and that is ridiculous. This doesn’t even take into account the huge expense each district will incur to pay for subs, training, and paperwork for each administration of these tests. These expenditures–and all unfunded mandate expenditures should become a part of accountability measures placed upon the legislature (if that would ever happen)–not for the schools.
I just added up how much time my 9th graders spend on “benchmarking,” 4 core-course testing, and review. 21 days. Over 4 weeks of the year. On top of that we have scoliosis screening, school pictures, ‘Fish Camp,’ Career Counseling (required), and 2 weeks devoted to Fall and Spring finals. That’s 7 weeks we are not teaching. Out of 36 the state requires. On top of that, the state STAAR test is the beginning of May, so all of our teaching to the test has to be completed by that time (3 weeks before the end of school). More time lost.
That leaves 26 weeks to teach the 65 objectives in my course. Really? And you’re going to grade me, my students, and my school based on this?
ok– let me begin by saying I’ve never been a teacher. The purpose of the blog is to genuinely get info to try to help, so I need to ask some questions. You teach 9th graders. I presume your students take four EOC tests. What is driving the level of “benchmarking”? Why does STAAR testing pull in the 9th graders since they are taking EOCs? Would it require less testing if the EOC tests served as the “Final” for the course? OK teachers, enlighten me–gently. JDA
ADMIN, I am a high school science teacher and will give you my opinion based on what I understand up to this point. But before that, I strongly believe that you have to communicate with teachers and listen (take advice from them) on certain things. I began teaching in a school where the principal would do things her way or the highway and that school was unacceptable throughout her few years there. A new principal came in who listened and from his first year, all the TAKS scores increased substantially continually for four years (the school was recognized at the end of the third). 95% of teachers are there because they love what they do (not for the pay or days of) and will give more of themselves when they feel they make a difference. Sometimes as admnistrators you view things through statistics, but everyone knows numbers don’t tell the whole story.
To answer your question, I believe that benchmarking is probably a district/school decision and it is based on schools wanting to have those numbers high enough to meet accountability. For high school courses the STAAR test IS the End Of Course exams and ideally they should count as the “Final Exam” for that course. I believe that was the original plan this year, but many parents in the community driven by over simplified media explanations of STAAR cried out and our state decided that this EOC should not count as a final.
I may be wrong, but I do believe a benchmark (and I do mean an actual benchmark, not a test to look at numbers) is actually beneficial if it is used correctly. What I mean by that, is that a benchmark should be the same through out the whole district and/or state and should only be based on the material that should have been covered up to that point (tied in to curriculum) and not the whole STAAR (students will obviously get questions on objectives still not covered incorrect).
The results should be given to the teachers (i mean the completed results and NOT the raw data for them to make sense of it otherwise it would become another waste of time for them) and the information should be divided by teacher (it would not help me to know a lot of detail about how students across the hall did, i need to know how my students did). Dividing the information by teacher will also help the teacher adjust his/her teaching based on the results and for stronger teachers to share methods or strategies that have been proven effective with his/her team/department.
So that it would not be a waste of time the benchmark should be incorporated into the curriculum as an exam grade (and since STAAR is timed students should practice taking timed test in their classes so they can develop pacing skills) and the teachers given the option to either drop an exam grade at the end of that grading period or offer an option for failing students to improve his/her grade on that exam.
Lastly, I do believe that Geography Lady does bring up a very important point. Most people look at the school calendar and translate that to days that teachers can teach. Many forget that there are a lot of interruptions that occur because of different activities that are not academically related and we are expected to cover a lot of material. From foreign exchange students (especially the ones that come to my 11th grade class and tell me they saw that material in 8th grade) i’ve learned that they learn less material throughout their school year, but they go into much more depth in the material they do learn. These students are thought important skills (problem solving) that will increase their performance in higher level course rather than “memorization” and it is the STUDENTS and parents that are accountable.
Do not misunderstand me, i do believe that teachers should be held accountable but not to the degree that we are now. I do not believe that it is the school’s responsibility to get a child to school, but rather to teach the children that ARE in school. A school should be responsible to create opportunites for struggling/failing students to review material (tutorials) and demonstrate that they have indeed learn it (re-test), but it should not be their responsibility to look for that child or bribe them ipods or pizza to for tutorials. Teachers are discouraged from having a large number of failure rates so they curve exams and drop grades… we are only leading our students into a false sense of accomplishment. The sad thing is that students know this system and they use it. I’ve heard of many students say “they can’t fail us all.” I truely believe that will begin to excel when we start holding students responsible. A school that does this will have a high failure rate at first but once students realize they can not get by the system doing nothing, these same students will rise to the expectations set forth.
Yes, I think it would make sense for STAAR EOC to serve as a final exam. The only snag you’re going to run into down the road may deal with seniors. It may come down to that final EOC to determine whether a student meets graduation requirements (in a time-crunch). Overall, this makes sense though; I see EOC as a final exam type assessment. We do not and cannot teach to a test, but we can certainly cover our grade/content-area material and assess student mastery. We already do this on a local level, so it is “tit for tat”. I like it.
You are absolutely about having a bit of problem with seniors… especially the way it is set up.
If I am not mistaken, they must have an OVERALL passing score. So in essence, they may fail their EOC (for a certain subject) exam as along as their overall score is above the threshold the student can still graduate with all requirements. But at the same time, a student my pass his/her last EOC but have a score that does not meet the minimum overall required score and will not be able to graduate.
I am certain that a lot of freshmen teachers are trying to explain this to the students, but they still view as graduation to be too far for them to even care. At least that is the experience we see in our school. I strongly believe that we should discuss this with all incoming freshmen parents or provide this information in letters… but I am almost sure that most parents will have the same attitude that their children will. Most of them will be panicking at the last minute.
On the other hand, I do believe that students have certain opportunities to re-test… can’t wait to see how this will play out in 3 more years.
Personally, I think that EOC (STAAR) is an improvement over TAKS and previous state exams.
We should not use a standardized test as a final exam. It’s an attractive solution, since the test exists, but those tests are designed to be comparative, not individual assessments of skill or knowledge. Just like we should not tie SAT scores to high school graduation. As an education researcher, I find the very idea appalling that these tests are being tied to individual performance. That’s not what they were designed for.
Thank you for providing this forum to discuss accountability. As a district-level administrator responsible for the benchmarking program in a mid-sized school district, I think I can provide some insight into that process.
School districts spend a tremendous amount of time and resources to benchmark. BUT, you must remember that when you tie accountability ratings to standardized tests you are, for all intents and purposes, mandating that districts do so. This is especially true in districts that have multiple “measures” of accountability. In other words, truly diverse districts, with multiple moving pieces required to build their accountability puzzle, so to speak, must take steps to give their students and themselves as a district a chance to be successful. For example, my district, under the previous accountability system, was held accountable for 25 measures (All students, African American, Hispanic, White, and Economically Disadvantaged…..5 groups multiplied by 5 tested subjects….the maximum number of measures). If steps weren’t taken to prepare for standardized tests, we knew we would fail to meet state standards and be punished, as so many districts and campuses have been. Yes, we could decide locally not to benchmark…but, our district would then face all the negative consequences that poor test results entail.
One of the complaints against schools has been the over-reliance on benchmarking. But, again, I must point out that the punitive measures imposed by the state along with the completely arbitrary tags (Unacceptable, Recognized, etc.) assigned based on test scores without question created an environment where the state, in essence, mandated that extreme measures be taken to hit standards-based accountability levels—especially if the district/campus had multiple accountability measures.
For any non-educator reading this, please keep in mind that the above-mentioned process was put in place to meet various standards across measures. For example, if one small student group, on one test, in one subject, on one day, did not perform at a certain level (based on an arbitrary figure set by the state, not a statistical analysis of how a particular group in a particular subject across the state performed), then the entire district/campus would be labeled unacceptable and face all the various sanctions plus the loss of public trust, credibility, etc.
To conclude, it just seems irresponsible to slash education funding in the billions of dollars while at the very same time spending almost $500 million dollars with a testing company (Pearson) to create more standardized tests that are more difficult—which will then require schools to spend even more time with test prep and test administration. This vicious cycle can be stopped.
Actuallly, Mr. Aycock, I really don’t think you do understand the frustration level with the mess of school accountability and STAARS. I think if you understood how frustrated and angry public school teachers are over this last legislative session’s decisions, you and they would have listened more and talked less.
As a public school teacher here are some specific changes-
1- Reduce the time required to take the test to 2 hours. Right now the time require for a student to take the test is 4 hours for about 60 questions. The students cannot leave the room, cannot talk, cannot do anything until the last person has finished. This is ridiculous. I looked up “bar exam” on the internet and the NY state bar give it’s lawyers 3 hours to take one section of the test and then another three hours to take the last section. We’re making kids take four hour tests every day for a week or more. Even an AP test is only about 3 hours long, yet we’re making freshmen regular English students sit stone silent for 4 hours. They can’t drink, they don’t eat lunch until almost 2pm (after coming to school at 7:30am) and they don’t have bathroom breaks. We are asking our teens to endure testing conditions that adults would not put up with.
2- If the students have two hours for the 50-70 questions, then they can take two tests a day, which will essentially HALVE the disruptions the tests cause the schools. The test themselves wreck the school day and destroy all continuity of learning. Students come out of test absolutely wiped out and to assume they’ll go back to their disrupted afternoon classes ready to learn is silly. Do college students go back to classes after the final? No. Then why are we making freshmen high school students to that?
3- Allow students who are taking AP tests (which is a more rigorous examination) to use those scores instead of STAARS test. Simply assign a number of STAARS points to an equivalent AP score. This will eliminate duplication of effort and give a more valid test score to use as an indication of the effectiveness of the class. At present a student in AP World Geography will take and EOC AND the AP test…a total of 7 hours of testing that is redundant.
4- Have the STAARS tests later in the year and require Pearson to earn their money and turn around the scores faster. There is no point in having and EOC months before the end of classes. An End of Course test is, in all sane worlds, given AFTER all of the teaching has occurred.
5- Don’t set up the tests without giving teachers the tools and the information needed to be successful. The STAARS tests were years in the making, yet teachers started this year with no practice tests and precious little guidance about what would be actually on the darn things. Then who is blamed with the kids fail? The teachers for “not doing their job”. How is that for frustration?
6- The STAARS test is essentially a Pre-AP test designed to promote college readiness. What about the 90% of kids who don’t go to college and never will? Why are we making them feel like abject failures because they don’t know the difference between a simile and a metaphor or understand a genome sequence? Create an final exam matrix that allows kids to take a vocational track and get a real diploma. For instance, the state could designate some professional certifications as worthy of replacing STAARS tests. It could say that (example) a student can pass two Science tests AND a third science OR pass their LPN certification. Is a third high school science class really more rigorous than passing a medical license or a Cisco networking certification? I really doubt it.
I agree that we need an accountability system that informs parents, teachers, and taxpayers with the information they need