“Accountability for results” has become a common catchphrase in education, representing a valuable component of any reform package. But what happens when accountability programs fail to consistently deliver reliable, valid feedback on student performance?
Click “Play” above to hear Terry Stoops discuss his Spotlight Report |
Such is the question posed by legislators in our state, who want to take a closer look at the ABCs, North Carolina’s school accountability program. Last year, the General Assembly called for a comprehensive review by the State Board of Education of ABCs standards—the inevitable result of widespread criticism. This month, as the evaluation begins, parents, school officials, and even state school board members are questioning the credibility of North Carolina’s accountability cornerstone.
The ABCs (an acronym for Accountability, Basic skills, and Control at the local level) became law in 1996. Currently, schools are held accountable for two aspects of achievement: proficiency and growth. In the realm of proficiency, current debate centers on the “minimal” standard set for proficiency: Should the state raise the cut scores for proficiency levels? Unfortunately, any change would be complicated by the fact that both state and federal accountability programs use proficiency levels to calculate whether schools are meeting performance goals. North Carolina plans to reach its target of having 100 percent of students proficient in the next nine years by setting incremental reading and math target goals.
And under federal education requirements, every state must have 100 percent of its students at proficient levels by 2013-14. If the cut score for proficiency is raised, however, incremental goals—at both the state and federal levels—will become more difficult to attain. Ultimately, because these scores are used in both state and federal calculations, change is probably not on the horizon.
Measurements for student achievement growth represent a more promising arena for reform. In the past, the student growth formula has been extremely complicated; proposed modifications are now focused on making formulas easy to understand. Changes would also involve including the percentage of students who actually achieve expected or high growth. In the past, designations have not reflected the number of students making expected or high growth, but simply the overall combined growth of all students in a given school.
This has allowed schools to achieve high growth with only a small percentage of students making great strides, and with a majority of students below grade level. In fact, in 2002-03, 94 percent of schools made high or expected growth, forcing legislators to pay an extra (and unexpected) $44 million in bonuses. Unlike proficiency levels, growth formulas are likely to change, as they are not linked to the federal accountability program.
Any modifications to growth formulas will also have financial implications, as these formulas provide the basis for teachers’ financial incentives. In the past, incentives have been attached to the school, rather than the teacher, meaning that all certified staff members in a high or expected growth school receive incentive awards.
The flaw with this policy is that the weakest teacher and the most effective teacher in a high-performing school receive the same award. Similarly, good teachers in poor-performing schools are overlooked. At this time, no one has raised the prospect of modifying this counterproductive and misguided practice. If formulas are changed, educators ought to consider adopting a policy that rewards teachers based on individual merit.
Clearly, a review of the ABCs by the state board is overdue. Yet even an overhaul of accountability standards will not resolve the widespread, systemic problems that plague our education monopoly. Meaningful change will take place only when legislators are prepared to open the education system to the free market. Until that time, we are left to tinker around the edges, patching an already broken system.
Kakadelis, a former schoolteacher, is director of the North Carolina Education Alliance.