[MUSIC] We're at a period in our country's history where accountability is really the fundamental lever for trying to improve the quality of schools. We've drifted away from the idea that you can improve them by helping them get better. And we've drifted towards this idea, that if we can figure out what to count, tell people how they're doing on those measures, and then have consequences, that that's going to drive behavior and drive improvements in our school. No child left behind, race to the top, a lot of local initiatives, a lot of teacher evaluation schemes. All are pointing in that direction, and I think that sort of accountability as the primary lever is woefully inadequate. The fact is, this is a mass profession when you look at teachers. Yes, we might take out the bottom five percent, and that might help us move the needle in useful ways of teachers who should not be in the classroom. But what about the 95%? And if you just carve off the top 20% and say you're great, go to it, then you've still got 75% in the middle that require support, creative mentoring, development. And that part of our equation you just don't hear about in either federal or state policy language. And you don't see resources in significant ways flowing to how do you actually elevate and lift the whole profession? So the accountability theory of action is, we're out on an extreme, I think, in our country, with regard to that. And I think there's, my hope is that the pendulum begins to swing back. And that we can build tools and provide supports and training to a mass profession, that are really focused on improving the quality of teaching and learning, and leadership, and not just measuring it. >> So we have this, this notion, this country, that people are responsible for their own actions. And accountability in education is plugging into that notion of, okay, so people need to be accountable for what they do. And teachers have been given a, a break on this for years and years and years, and they've just let kids get through the school system. They've just passed them, social promotion, etcetera. I mean, they're not doing their jobs, and so we need to check up on them and make sure that they're doing their jobs, i.e. That they're accountable, and there need to be consequences. Right. So along with accountability comes this notion of consequence. All right. It's not just that you're accountable, there are consequences. What are those consequences? Unfortunately those consequences are death, to put it sort of succinctly. It's like, you're going to get fired, you're school's going to get closed. It's like moving from life to death, not you know, consequence of you're failing in this particular area. We're going to try and figure out how to improve what's going on in that particular space. And that's not been the case with the accountability movement. That said, there's clearly been a number of opportunities I think, to witness waste. And it's all really about individuals, which is kind of odd when you consider the fact that individuals really can't do much on their own, certainly not in this day and age. I mean, I can't farm. I can't sew. I can't build a car. I can't do all of these things. I need other people to be able to provide those goods and services, in order for me to be actually able to contribute to an economy. And the notion of accountability really just sort of wipes that away and says that's not important. The only thing that's important is that you as an individual take responsibility for your actions. And sadly I think, that particular framework is leading us in a place where we have haves and have nots. And we're not taking care of one another as a society. >> Well I think we have always you know been a system, education wise, where we get graded. [LAUGH] And I think that's sort of part of our culture and part of our expectation. And so I think that it's an understandable goal and I think, in many respects, appreciated by the community to see where they fall in terms of the others around them. Whether that be the neighboring school district, whether it be another school district in the state, another state, another country. We look at how we do with respect to other nations in the world. So I think that's a natural desire to get to a point where we're able to see where we fall in relation to others. I also think that we're now, you know, with technology being what it is in a very data heavy culture. Where, you know, there is so much information that's out there around school districts and performance and the like, and I think many people are looking to just see how that can be distilled into something really simple like a grade. And so that's where we've also seen a number of states try to develop really helpful report cards, that lay out how a particular school district, school, state, are doing. And I think all of that depends on just people being really thoughtful as to making sure that the right metrics are being included in these types of accountability systems. And that they're being measured in the right way. But I see this only Increasing, even if there are many people out there, especially those that are affected by these grades. Constantly clambering against it with, I think an understandable argument that it's really, really hard to try to distill down the performance of a school district, it's teachers, etcetera, to a particular number or grade. >> I think it is normal and logical for people to be concerned about the degree to which their children are learning in school. And the degree to which other children are learning in school. I need for other people's children to grow up able to work well, so this whole country can keep working. I want all children in this country to be articulate, to be literate, and to be able to do simple arithmetic. I'd love them to be able to think symbolically and algebraically. But I think it is logical to want to be able to establish whether children are learning the kinds of things that we want them to learn. So, I think the impetus behind high stakes testing is there, is because we need to be certain that that is going on. The problem is, in my opinion, that in addition to those more cognitive things, I think it is also important that children develop habits, habits of mind, habits of thinking, habits of problem solving. Habits of being on time. And those are things that we do not and cannot yet test for. So we put all of our impetus on being able to read and dissect a passage, and figure out what the author was trying to say, or to be able to solve a math problem. Neither of which necessarily have a lot to do with success later on. So I understand and would agree with. I want people to be able to say, my child is learning and the other children in this school are learning, but I'm not sure that we have the instruments to do that. Or I'm not sure that we all agree on what the ends of education ought to be. >> And there are some inherent problems in the accountability systems. 1. When you try to measure anything, your measurements actually can become distorted. So, for example, with all of the pressure on student performance on tests, you get a lot of bad practices designed just to make sure students are doing well on the tests, that are bad for student learning. Test prep, narrowing the curriculum. Another issue, is that you put pressure on schools that make it more difficult for people to feel happy and content in their jobs, and potentially encourage mobility of teachers and principals. So if you look at which schools actually are targeted by accountability policies. It tends to be the schools that are serving the most disadvantaged students, because schools that are serving more advantaged populations of students, really don't even have to serve their students well to look good on the accountability metrics. Because they serve students that come in with high achievement in the first place, whose families have a lot of resources to support instruction, to support school, to support the schools and also support the children to do well in school. And so they look good in general, the policies are designed in ways so that the schools serving more advantaged students, don't have to work hard to look good on the accountability metrics. The school serving more low income students, more students in high poverty, often not only have a harder job, but often the policies are designed in a way so that they actually cannot be successful on the metrics. Or we have no evidence of schools being able to reach some of the criteria that are expected by the accountability metrics. And that's because a lot of times, accountability systems are designed in an aspirational way. Like we want all students to be showing these levels of performance. But there's no actual evidence that we know how to produce those kinds of levels of performance, in schools that are serving a lot of students who are living in really vulnerable situations and high poverty. You know, students coming in with very low achievement. So we've put these standards into place that are really impossible for schools to meet. And so then you have an impossible task for school administrators and teachers. And that puts a lot of pressure on them. >> So at U Chicago Charter School, our mission is pretty straightforward. >> We expect to prepare 100% of our students for acceptance to and graduation from college. So, starting there, all of our accountability goes to college graduation. And if we start at the top, that means what percentage of our students graduate from college, how many of them are persisting, how many are enrolling, how many got accepted. How many graduated from high school, and it works its way down. So to many people that says, well that's really easy for the high schools, but what did that mean for elementary and middle schools? But, we do know that there are certain things now that predictors, for how likely it is if the students going to make it through high school in the first place. So by looking at, perhaps, GPA in fifth grade or sixth grade. We can then make a better prediction about how likely it is that a student's going to be eligible to go to high school, graduate, and then go to college. So tying in that sixth grade GPA into college potential outcomes, is something that we're trying to do. Attendance, we now know that attendance can be a problem as early as four, five years old. That we can see problems with attendance as early as Pre-K. And so, if we can then start tracking, reporting, and trying to incentivize for better attendance, even with the families and students of our four year olds. Then we can get our students into the habit of, I come to school every day. The school is organized around attendance. That seems so simple. How is that related to college? But our research tells us, that students that are in school 98% of the time or more, are more likely to be successful in school, than those that miss as few as seven days or eight days a school year. Now, was that mean on the ground? It means that we're holding students accountable. And we're putting incentives in place for them to be in school everyday. It means that we're also holding the school accountable. That we're tracking attendance and that we're looking at it. And that we expect the school to be able to have an impact on how often kids come to school. It also means that we're looking at grades. And we're looking at grades just as seriously as we're looking at test scores. You know, what does it take for students to be successful in our schools? What percentage of our students are on track, starting in middle school. And if they're off track, are we just holding the student accountable, but are we also holding the adults in the building accountable? >> So in almost any situation like this, >> My position is, you want multiple measures. You just can't hang everything on a single measure. And no matter how good these tests are, you want more than that. So my perspective is that we need these accountability systems that are much richer and broader and contain other sorts of measures. Including, you know, my colleagues at the University of Chicago's consortium, have showed us over and over again, that the grades that students get from their teachers are more predictive of their long-term outcomes than the test scores are. And we've just got to sort of get people to understand that a little bit better. It's a very hard sell, because people say, well grades are subjective, and so forth, but we've got a really solid evidence base about how important they are. So we need to measure kids' learning, their cognitive skills >> But we also have to recognize that schools do many other things. And there's been this fear that this total focus on these test scores, some of which are very bad measures or low quality measures of low order thinking skills, >> You know, they've sort of driven out some of the other things that we want our kids to do, which is like school, be self-confident, learn how to persist, be creative. These are the kinds of things that matter in the long run. Much more than the test scores. So how do we get sort of a balanced, fair accountability system? >> That uses multiple measures so that we're not overly dependent, and when you use a single measure, what you do is you pervert the measurement. And this happens over and over again, we see all sorts of ways of figuring out how to corrupt that measurement. So I'm all for much more a broader look at how to measure school performance, and teaching performance for that matter. >> All of the accountability measures, I would want to believe that intentions were originally pure, in the sense of wanting to ensure that all students had access. And we're going to figure out who's got access to high quality, who doesn't and why. But I have arrived at the thought that it really is smoke and mirrors for not dealing with larger societal issues, of how and why a school is under performing, or not performing, or under-resourced. So, yes we can look at all of these measures, and we can have a conversation with the teacher or school leader about what's happening And then, once that conversation happens, then what? Well, we take that back to the folks who are interested in the numbers. What's going to change to support that school? I think it shifts the conversation away from a more societal issues conversation. And just lands it solely, instead of just one slice of the pie, but solely on teachers and school leaders. [MUSIC]
