If The Class Doesn't Learn, Who's To Be Responsible?

Parents can confirm it as quickly as the piles of alarming studies and statistics. Lots of Johnnies and lots of Janies are not learning to read, or write, or do arithmetic, or do much of anything. The litany of failure runs through every level of the public education system. The high school dropout rate - onethird of entering ninth graders fail to gradúate - is a national disgrace. And educators and employers teil us that a significant additional number do graduj ate, but are ill-prepared or disinclined - or both - to pursue further education or productive labor. Other statistics point to the fact that two-thirds of the work and resources at the secondary level are directed to the 35 per cent of the students who plan to go to college. And colleges are saying that they are not altogether satisfied wjth the job being done. But, asks the high school and junior high school teacher, how can I teach Johnny civics or literature or even meIchanics when he comes out of elementary school without being able to read? IHow can I teach him algebra when he f doesn't know how to multiply and divide? And the kindergarten and first grad teacher can claim, with plenty of studies to back him or her up, that many youngsters make their appearance on the school scène without the cognitive or social skills necessary for further learning. For black, poor and other minority parents the problem is acute. The dropout and "underachievement" rates for their Johnnies and Janies are especially appalling. To top it off, the cost to the public of keeping Johnny in the school where he's not learning anything is skyrocketing. When confronted with the evidences of failure, the educational establishment has generally offered one of two answers : 1 - The schools are undersupported. In other words, if we had more money we could do the job. 2 - Socioeconomic, environmental and personal problems handicap many children to the point where they are "uneducable" or at least less educable. These factors are beyond the control of the schools and cannot be solved by them. But such replies are finding less and less sympathy. The combination of more money for .seemingly poorer results is perhaps the largest factor behind the current widespread phenomenon of "taxpayer revolt." Frustrated parents and put-upon taxpayers have begun to demand that the educational establishment take responsibility for its failures as well as its successes. Put your performance where your mouth is, they are saying, or the money is not going to be forthcoming. The notion of "accountability" has come from that quarter of the educational establishment that thinks those parents and taxpayers are justified and that they mean business. Dr. John W. Porter, Michigan State Superintendent of Public Instruction and one of the leading proponents of educational accountability in the nation, defines the concept this way : "Accountability is the guarantee that all students will acquire the minimum school skills necessary to take full advantage of the choices that accrue upon successful completion of public schooling, or we in education will describe the reasons why." Thiris a careful statement, but since the term was first coined a few years ago by Dr. León Lessinger, a former associate commissioner of the U.S. Office of Education, care has not always been taken in defining it. The notion of accountability has been latched onto as quickly by those who are more interested in assigning blame or those looking for simple answers as by those who seek responsible solutions to the complex problems of the public schools. Proposals have come out under the heading of "accountability systems" which would tie teacher pay to student performance. Under such systems students would be given standardized achievement tests at the beginning and end of the year. The teacher would be rewarded X per cent of his or her salary or penalized X per cent of his or her salary for every one-tenth of a year's progress above or below the average that the students made. On the surface such plans have the appeal of simplicity and justice - a dollar paid for a dollar earned. In fact, they are oversimplified and probably grossly unfair, since they reward the teacher of the intelligent and well-to-do and penalize the teacher of the disadvantaged, without indicating much about the teacher's real effectiveness. But Dr. Porter and other supporters of accountability insist that the public is going to hold the schools accountable in one way or another. The current wave of millage defeats, they say, portends the bleak future of the nation's public school system if demands for better results for the money spent are not met. If the educational community itself does not take the initiative in establishing a meaningful system of accountability, Dr. Porter warns, there will be increasing public pressure for adoption of plans like the one outlined above or alternatives such as performance contracting or voucher systems. Under performance contraéis, currently being experimented with in several places around the nation, school districts have turned their schools - lock, stock and barrel - over to a private accent on women Section Two July2,1972 PagesT3to26
(continued) tional company (or occasionally a group of teachers). The company contracts to have all students achieving at a specified level in a given period of time. If the goals are not mqt, ihe company forfeits its profits. The voucher plan, also being experimented with in several areas, is even more controversial. The state (or local school system) would establish an average cost per pupil. Parents would receive a "voucher" in that amount for each of their school-age children. They could then turn the voucher over to any school, public or private, of their choice. Many educators feel that widespread adoption of the voucher plan would result in the collapse of the public school system as it has been known in this country. Dr. Porter is, therefore, deeply committed to the notion of educational accountability. Under his leadership, the State Department of Education has drawn'up a six point "accountability model" which he is determined to see implemented by the public schools in Michigan. The model is currently being pilot tested in 11 selected Michigan schools. Ann Arbor's Mack Elementary School is one of them. Porter concedes that gaining acceptance for his accountability model will not be easy. He lists among the probable opponents of the concept "significant numbers" of students, teachers and principáis ; central administrative s t a f f ; school board members; taxpayers; legislators; teacher training instructors; and state department of education personnel. The possible opposition of students, parents, school boards and taxpayers will be overeóme, he believes, when the intent to make the 'school establishment responsible for its successes and failures is made clear. The most powerful opposition, already much evident in professional journals, will come from within the educational establishment. Why is such opposition expected? What are the objections to accountability? There are many. First, accountability implies standardized goals and objectives at every step of the educational process. It implies regular testing to see that the objectives are met. These ideas offend the sensibilities of educators who believe in the need for individualizing instruction and cherish the notion that there is much more to "education" than teaching basic skills. Says T. Anne Enderby, outgoing president of the Ann Arbor Education Association, "I'm turned off as a teacher by the sort of stuff that says, for exampel, 'Every child shall progress X number of steps in X amount of time.' It doesn't make any sense unless you're talking about individual children. "The subject matter lines drawn between grades is totally artificial, a matter of administrative convenience. You don't have to get to know a child if your goal for him is 'fourth grade level' or 'one year's progress on a standardized test,' " she says. A second, frequently-stated objection is that the problems in education are not in setting goals and objectives, but in achieving them. "Setting an objective doesn't teil you how to reach it," says Miss Enderby. "And the one thing we've never quite gotten to in education is finding out just how each individual child learns best." Third, and probably most important politically, accountability implies evaluation of professional performance. And many professional educators, particularly teachers, find this threatening and unfair. Falling back on the arguments of "financial malnutrition" of the schools and socioeconomic handicaps of students, many teachers' unions have taken the position that accountability will make them the scapegoats for problems over (over please)
which they have no control. Said David Selden, president of the American Federation of Teachers in a recent article, "If a child does not learn to read, the assumption is that his teacher, rather than the managers of education, did not do a good job. "Most accountability advocates want to do away with the due process protections of teacher tenure acts established after years of hard work," Selden added. And, he continued, "teachers resent the breathing-over-your-shoulder type of 'snoopervision' " employed by overzealous administrators. He predicted that adoption of such plans would result in teacher rebellion. Not all teachers' associations are so adamantly opposed to teacher evaluation and accountability. The United Federation of Teachers in New York City, the most powerful teachers' union in the nation, took the lead in committing itself to develop and adopt an accountability plan in its 1969 contract. Locally, Miss Enderby says, "It is very important that professionals be held accountable, though on a much more individual basis than some of the plans which have been put forward." The AAEA is not opposed to teacher evaluation, she adds, and is in the process of developing with the administration procedures for regular and systematic evaluation of tenured as well as nontenured teachers. The proponents of accountability have answers for all the objections. "Accountability will help make individualized instruction a reality instead of a slogan," says Harold Fillyaw, director of the accountability project af Mack. Setting performance objectives for minimum school skills at each level is a legitimate enterprise, he claims, and if properly done they should he the same for every school in every community. "There's a difference between testing and assessment," Fillyaw says. "What we're doing is assessing, doing regular profiles on each individual student, so that the teacher knows exactly where he is and what still needs to be achieved. "We are doing away with, not creating, the mechanical teacher," he says. "Each teacher will have to figure out the methods to get each child where he should be." To the complaint that accountability tells what the objectives are but not how to reach them, proponents of the concept say that experience with the objectives will help the teacher lócate the areas where he or she is having difficulties so that help can be sought out. "This is not a threat to me," says Jo Ann Lewis, a teacher involved in the Mack project. "We've leaned too much on 'socioeconomic background.' What we're coming to terms with here is that if a child is going into the third grade and can't read, then we have to do Isomething about it right here in the school, no matter what his family or socioeconomic background. "Teachers need professional growth," Mrs. Lewis says. "And this program encourages you to get it. "I've been teaching for a long time, but this year has been the most marvelous experience of my life. The kids and the rest of the staff MADE me live up to my profession."