Educational practices
are now very different compared to a generation ago. During the last decade of the twentieth
century the standards-based movement and education reform efforts utilized the
diverse research that followed the publication of “A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform”
(1983) to advance educational reform. Undoubtedly, accountability now provides the single
greatest variable to planning for effective and sustained educational reform
efforts. Depending on its acceptance
of the concept of multiple levels of accountability, a struggling school’s
staff might willingly utilize data to adjust or remain mired in the inertia of
ineffective systemic and personal practices.
Ideally, frequent monitoring, analysis, and adjustment based on results of accountability measures allow data to guide instructional decisions. However, effective monitoring and analysis of data depends on how well educational leaders are able to guide the process. The continuous improvement process in education should develop a building-wide culture whereby all systems, processes, strategies, and actions define “how we do things around here”(Lezotte & Snyder, 2011, p. 141). Without a clear and focused mission of learning being guided by strong instructional leadership, the interdependent implementation of all seven of the correlates of Effective Schools Research, progress is adversely impacted.
Ideally, frequent monitoring, analysis, and adjustment based on results of accountability measures allow data to guide instructional decisions. However, effective monitoring and analysis of data depends on how well educational leaders are able to guide the process. The continuous improvement process in education should develop a building-wide culture whereby all systems, processes, strategies, and actions define “how we do things around here”(Lezotte & Snyder, 2011, p. 141). Without a clear and focused mission of learning being guided by strong instructional leadership, the interdependent implementation of all seven of the correlates of Effective Schools Research, progress is adversely impacted.
As suggested, frequent monitoring, analysis, and adjustment based on
disaggregated accountability
data
should provide the impetus for discussing improvement of instruction as
grounded in the seven correlates of Effective Schools:
·
Safe and Orderly Environment
·
Clear and Focused Mission
·
Climate of High Expectations for
Success
·
Opportunity to Learn & Student
Time on Task
·
Frequent Monitoring of Student
Progress
·
Positive Home-School Relations
·
Strong Instructional Leadership
Based
on empirical evidence grounded in research and documented best practices, when
seeking school improvement it is prudent to implement the correlates for
Effective Schools. Disaggregated
data helps “the district, its schools, and its teachers to evaluate their
effectiveness” (Davenport
& Anderson, 2002, p. 62). Given the interdependency of the seven
correlates, an effective, strong school leader approaches the correlates with
the view of implementing them all at once.
Accountability requirements within
legislation such as No Child
Left Behind (NCLB, 2002) and IDEA (2004)
created the impetus for sustained change efforts of schools. However, poor communication during the
implementation of more stringent accountability requirements often resulted in the
fear of failure becoming the single most powerful force of change working
within an educational community. Too
often, this fear of failure paralyzed leadership around the trailing indicators
for change (assessments) rather than mobilizing them to trust implementation of
interdependent leading indicators (correlates of Effective Schools Research). This situation exacerbates the tail wagging
the dog.
Rather than promoting success of new
initiatives through the question, “are we doing the right thing?” fear of
failure resulted in ineffective “Learn or Else” approaches that resulted in
further implementation of fragmented policies based on the persistent question,
“are we doing it right?” A positive
aspect of NCLB and IDEA accountability requirements was the emergence of professional
learning communities (PLC), which addressed the need to develop a systemic culture
of continuous improvement promoting learning (DuFour,
DuFour, & Eaker, 2008). Marzano
and Waters (2009) believe, a PLC “suggests a
group of people sharing and critically interrogating their practice in an
ongoing, reflective, collaborative, inclusive, learning oriented,
growth-promoting way; operating as a collective enterprise” (p. 56).
Ineffective school leaders
disrupt productive PLC processes by failing to invite teacher leaders to become
agents of change. Instead, these
ineffective school leaders dwell in the problems by instilling culture fearful of failure. Schools that spend a lot of time talking
about teaching to the test are examples of systems locked into the inertia of
problem-driven cultures.
Staff perception is a very important
variable in the success of any initiative.
Depending upon a leader’s selected approach to implementation of accountability
measures, the perceived consequences implied within the approach has the power
to create either a positive or a negative reaction. Therefore, the effective leader needs to provide
a clear vision that strikes a positive emotional chord with staff (Reason,
2010).
Lezotte
and Snyder (2011) reinforce the most significant feature common to
world-class schools “was their continual effort toward becoming “learning
organizations with a commitment to continuous problem-solving and a sense of
shared responsibility for improvement” (p. 67).
A consistent exhibition of vision toward a clear mission, commitment to
learning for all, and shared responsibility for success certainly appears to be
minimal requirements to promote an effective school culture. Development of an inclusive, inviting culture
requires an emotionally intelligent leader willing to embrace collaboration
rather than reliance upon fear or intimidation as the impetus to change. An obvious result of an inclusive, inviting, approach
is improved organizational culture resulting from greater consistency and
reduced staff turnover (Austin
& Harkins, 2008).
During
the twelve years of NCLB implementation, diverse stakeholders have critiqued
the role of teachers in educational reform.
Regardless of philosophical debates, it has become clear that to some
substantial level, teachers are accountable for student results. With increased accountability comes various
schemes intended to optimize results.
Boulding (1989)
identified three kinds of motivating power: stick power, carrot power, and hug
power, which are further described whereby stick power is the power derived
from threats, carrot power is the power derived from provision of incentives,
and hug power is the result of two or more individuals joining together based
on a shared vision and values. Apparently,
the joy of good teaching, the opportunity to shape young minds, or helping to
change destinies is not enough incentive to promote great teaching.
The Brazosport case study (Davenport
& Anderson, 2002) exemplified “hug power” as an effective form of motivation. Brazosport achieved "learning for
all" and accomplished reform. A
good set of processes joined with the right motivation to create sustained
success.
As cited by Marzano
and Waters (2009), a Borman, Hewes, Overman, and Brown study (2003)
regarding the implementation of comprehensive school reform (CSR) models, found
“the effect size for comprehensive interventions rose over time and suggest
that it might take longer than a decade for the effects of a CSR model to stabilize.
CSR models are focused on individual
schools” (p. 114). Marzano and Waters
rationalized a similar timeline could be anticipated for district-wide
initiatives, including nonnegotiable goals for achievement and instruction. Perhaps it is time to evaluate whether
teachers believe educating children is a sufficiently cherished aspiration and defined
as a non-negotiable goal.
Effective Schools Research proves the
mission of learning for all is possible regardless of misguided initiatives and
unintended consequences. Educational
leaders and the community must commit to the mission. However, as accountability increasingly focuses
upon teachers in relation to student results, other motivators will be promoted
rather than seeking to do the right thing, for the right reason, and doing it
in the right way.
In a February
11, 2011 article, Bybee paraphrased Diane
Ravitch's claim that, "President Barack Obama and Education Secretary
Arne Duncan have formed an alliance with billionaire 'school reformers' whose
agenda is to downgrade U.S. public education and blame its shortcomings on 'bad
teachers'" (para 1). While Ravitch’s
description of the pursuit of teacher accountability as an effort to downgrade
the US public education system is unsubstantiated, it is true that corporate
reformers led by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Eli and Edith Broad
Foundation, and the Walton Family foundation, advocate that merit pay is a vital
incentive or reward for better-performing teachers. However, a Vanderbilt
University study (2010) clearly demonstrated merit pay failed to produce higher
standardized testing results.
Nevertheless, pay
for performance is becoming a popular concept for the teaching profession. In Florida, all new teachers are annual
contract teachers and forty percent of their salary will be based on student
gains in learning. Whether this carrot
approach proves effective will be unknown until analysis of initial
accountability data after 2014.
Improving the quality of teachers has
become a pressing issue in educational reform efforts. The focus to improve the quality of teachers is
obvious when considering Race to the Top (RTT)
initiatives for supporting funded states that successfully identified and implemented
plans for “recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers
and principals, especially where they are needed most” (USDE, 2010).
As noted by Crowe
(2011), teacher education elements of the
RTT funding application were favorable to states adopting accountability measures
establishing or expanding teacher preparation programs successfully producing
effective teachers. RTT required the
funded states to:
·
“Link student achievement and
student growth data to the teachers of these students
·
Tie this information to the in-state
programs that prepare teachers
·
Publicly report the data on program
effectiveness for each preparation program in the state
·
Expand teacher education programs
and teacher credentialing options that are successful at producing graduates
who are effective teachers” (para. 6).
Obtaining change in the overall quality
of teacher education in the United States is behind RTT efforts to combine a
carrot-and-stick approach. Incentives will
continue to be offered to programs that embark on serious reform efforts while stronger
accountability measures will push the programs toward the desired direction. However, is an extrinsically
or intrinsically motivated teacher the better educator? If the former, what values will be instilled as
part of that teacher’s presentation of the affective domain of
learning?
To cite:
Anderson, C.J. (June 5, 2013) Will teacher accountability initiatives improve student learning? [Web log post]
References:
Bybee, R. (Feb 11, 2011) Race to the bottom: Ravitch
says ‘school reformers’ scapecoat
teachers, ignore poverty. Retrieved from http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/6939/obama_sides_with_corporate_attack_on_teachers_instead_of_new_war_on_po/
Crowe, E. (March
1, 2011) Race to the top and teacher
preparation: Analyzing state strategies for
ensuring real
accountability and fostering program innovation. Center for American Progress.
Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2011/03/01/9329/race-to-the-top-and-teacher-preparation/
Davenport, P., & Anderson, G. (2002). Closing
the achievement gap: No excuses. Houston, TX:
APQC
DuFour, R., DuFour, R.,
& Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at
work: New insights for
improving schools. Bloomington,
IN: Solution Tree Press.
Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What
effective schools do: Re-envisioning the
correlates.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Marzano, R. & Waters, T.(2009). District
leadership that works. Bloomington, IN: Solution
Tree
Press
Reason, C. (2010). Leading a learning
organization: The science of working with others.
Bloomington,
IN: Solution Tree Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment