Washington's Student Learning Improvement Effort: The Accountability System

A Position Paper by the Washington State School Directors' Association

by Larry Swift, former WSSDA Executive Director October, 1997

Introduction

We are at a critical step in a process of change that began in the 1970's. At that time the legislature attempted to make the funding of schools more equitable and to relieve the pressure on local property taxes by making a commitment to "full funding of basic education". As the state's share of school funding approached 80%, the legislature's inclination to micro manage the schools and to issue unfunded mandates became a habit. We were frustrated. But so was the legislature, since no matter how many bills it passed learning did not seem to improve systemically.

With HB 1209 a fundamentally new approach was established. Instead of attempting to improve student learning by directing how schools would operate, the bill fashioned a new quid pro quo. The legislature would identify the expected results from the public school system, leaving it to local school districts to determine how to achieve those results. In exchange for billions of dollars per year, the legislature would institute a system of assistance, incentives and interventions -- i.e. a system of accountability based on learning results. It would be directed at holding school districts accountable, not students. It would be the state's management system for fulfilling its constitutional responsibility for student learning through a process of delegating authority to local school districts.

The first phase of the effort has been the development of the Essential Academic Learning Standards and assessment systems. Those define the expected results. We now are engaged in the second phase of development, even as the first phase continues. The Commission on Student Learning is now attempting to develop its recommendations to the legislature for the Accountability System. As the learning goals and assessment system have emerged, it is becoming apparent how substantial this change is. It is becoming apparent that it will take considerable time to make the transition. That causes fear and doubt as to whether we can accomplish the change. Therefore, it is important to first discuss the context of the learning improvement effort before suggesting a framework for accountability.

Part I: The Context for Accountability

"All children can learn." It seems little more than a cliché, yet it is a notion that is rocking public education at its foundation. That such an obvious proposition is at the heart of the national school reform movement is startling. Simply observing infants confirms its validity. So how could it be revolutionary? Until now we thought of schools as a place where students had the opportunity to learn. Most would; some would not. But now, with the commitment to the principle that all children can learn, we have come to expect that schools will assure that all students do learn. Our focus has shifted from maximizing the opportunity to learn to an "educational bottom line", i.e. results.

The reason this is a paradigm shift for our schools is that it requires us to replace "batch process" learning with a system capable of developing each individual learner. Of course, the simple declaration is not quite as simple as it first appears. It is true that all children can learn, but not at the same time, not in the same way, not at the same rate and not to the same levels. Again, simple observation of infants confirms the impact of individual differences on learning. When we organize schools to give students an opportunity to learn, we can use group instructional practices such as lectures, the same instructional materials for all learners, and the same amount of time for learning. And then we can test for comprehension. Since all students are different, varying levels of performance on the test are expected. Students sort themselves out according to their varying ability and effort, and the teacher goes on to the next lesson. It is less significant that students come to school with varying degrees of preparedness to learn, since the schools' responsibility has been to provide an opportunity to learn, not assure learning. If sound instructional practices and materials have been used, the schools have fulfilled their duty, regardless of the results.

But when the public's expectation for schools shifts to assuring that all students achieve a certain degree of academic proficiency, a profound change occurs. Different degrees of readiness to learn have dramatic implications for the schools' success. Differences in learning styles must be taken into account. Testing students to identify and to grade the amount of learning they have achieved is not the end of each step in the learning process. Those that have not met the standards must be re-taught. Schools must make sweeping changes in how learning is managed. Like automobile plants re-tooling for a new model car, schools must re-build their instructional and curricular frameworks. But unlike a manufacturing plant, they cannot shut down to change their assembly lines.

The general public and policy makers have not recognized the magnitude of change that this shift in expectations is demanding of school districts. A gap is developing between the education community and the larger public. As attention in Washington State shifts from the development of the Essential Academic Learning Standards and their assessment to the development of a system of accountability, there is danger that the broad consensus in the education community in support of school reform will shatter.

On the one hand, the school community is increasingly fearful that it will be held to impossible expectations. It is concerned that a simplistic testing and reporting system that lumps all students together will erode support in an already skeptical public. Many educators say, "How can you include all fourth graders in the report on student reading proficiency, when many of them have limited English speaking skills, many of them started school with virtually no reading readiness, and some of them have learning disabilities that limit the rate and level of learning?"

On the other hand, many among policy makers and the public see this as excuse making. "Schools have always been about learning," they say. "It simply is inexcusable that some students can graduate from high school without basic literacy skills. We must insist that students master basic academic skills. By reporting information about which schools are doing better with regard to those skills, the public is better informed and some healthy competition is introduced into a monopolistic enterprise."

If we are to avoid a kind of "shoot out at the OK Corral" school directors must take the lead in bridging the gap between public policy expectations and the technical challenges that are facing professional educators in developing a performance based learning system. School directors are policy makers with special information. They are also the link between the schools and the general public. It is imperative that they take the lead in reconciling the differences between the two points of view.

Part II: A Framework for An Accountability System

Because of the magnitude of change, it is imperative for policy makers, the public and educators to recognize that it will take a great deal of time to re-model the learning system, perhaps a generation. It is also essential to note that we do not know all that we need to know about the link between specific student learning needs, the sequencing of curriculum and specific instructional strategies. Thus, both the state's management plan and local operational plans will have to change in response to things that are learned along the way.

With those two caveats in mind, the WSSDA suggests the following elements for the state's accountability framework:

1. The goals of HB 1209 should be reaffirmed as the foundation for school reform in Washington.

• They are focused on the central expectations of the general public, i.e. that students will master the basic academic skills;

• They establish a fundamentally correct division of labor between the state legislature and those who run the public school system. Rather than mandating particular methods of operating the schools, the legislature will use student learning results as its basic tool to hold the system accountable for funds that it appropriates;

• They establish higher standards of learning which are appropriate to the more demanding world of work which students will be entering.

2. Once enacted by the legislature, the accountability system should not be changed frequently, so that both practitioners and policy makers can know what is expected. It would be unfortunate to have the accountability system change with every legislature. However, its focus -- particularly initially -- should be on improving the performance of schools rather than on penalties for failure to meet expectations. The system can always be tightened in the future, if performance in some districts does not meet expectations and, when we know more about which instructional practices are most effective with different students.

3. Elements of an Accountability System:

1. Reporting system. General results at the 4th, 7th and 10th grades in the specified academic area should be reported, but a format for reporting disaggregated data should also be established. Thus, the progress of particular groups in the population such as transient, limited English-speaking, and developmentally disabled students could also be tracked in a consistent way throughout the state.

2. Student Performance Targets Student performance targets for schools and districts, similar to those proposed by the Accountability Task Force for 4th grade reading, should be established as each academic area and grade level of assessment comes on line. The purpose of the targets, however, should be to focus attention on improvement from year to year. The purpose of the goals should not be to establish minimum standards of achievement which, if not met, automatically initiate some form of state intervention or penalty. Legislation should specifically address that purpose and provide that before such targets become the cause for intervention, our experience with them will be evaluated and appropriate adjustments in the targets, the data system or other aspects of the system will be made.

3. District Monitoring and Planning For six years following the start-up of each grade and subject area assessment, each district should be expected to address student performance in the following way:

• Each school board should annually include in at least one of its meetings, a review of the district's performance in an effort to monitor progress toward the goals and to create a public forum to understand what is effective and not effective in promoting student learning.

• Each district should submit a report to the OSPI evaluating the student performance results and setting out its plan of action to improve student performance generally and for each of the particular groups of students which are identified in the state reporting system.

d. OSPI should develop and the legislature should appropriate resources to staff two sections within the Office:

• Reporting and Monitoring

This section should develop and maintain the reporting system required to gather data and reports from school districts. It should also analyze the information for the purpose of identifying school profiles that would qualify as "persistently failing" to meet the academic achievement goals of HB 1209. In doing so the section should have to take into account performance variances in the sub-groups of students as well as the student population as a whole.

• Research and Assistance

This section should analyze educational research and conduct studies of schools in Washington to identify instructional practices that are associated with improving student learning. It should disseminate its findings, conduct workshops, work with the colleges and universities and collaborate with the ESDs to make the information available to support school districts in their effort to implement successful practices. It should also develop diagnostic techniques that could be used in those districts which were identified as "persistently failing" to meet learning improvement expectations. Such diagnostic tools would be used to identify possible causes for the "persistent failure" and would be available if an intervention team is assigned to such a district.

e. Intervention Teams

The accountability system should anticipate a team being formed to assist a district or school that "persistently fails" to meet learning expectations. Such a team would be activated only after the means has been developed to identify "persistent failure", diagnostic tools have been developed for such a team to use, and training has been provided to members of the teams. OSPI's section on Research and Assistance should be charged with developing the job description and authority of the teams, based on what it learns about diagnostic practices and the relationship between specific instructional practices/programs and improved student learning.

f. Funding

A 10 year plan for state financial assistance should be developed. The plan should focus on specific targets or goals and suggest the sequence in which they would be addressed. That would enable the plan to be adjusted in a rationale manner to accommodate the amount of funding allocated by the legislature. Initially, it should focus on staff development. Rather than reallocating funds from existing programs or adding a fixed percentage to general apportionment, the additional financial assistance should be targeted according to the plan proposed by the OSPI and approved by the legislature. The plan should be modified over time as the OSPI's section on Research and Assistance learns more about successful strategies for improving learning.

g. Rewards and Incentives

While rewards and incentives can have a positive impact on people's motivation, they could have negative consequences also. For example, if scarce resources are used to provide monetary rewards while leaving other essential aspects of the system under funded, the results could be harmful. Similarly, if the criteria for rewards are not sophisticated enough to distinguish between learning targets that are easy to reach and those that are hard, they could become disincentives for many educators. Therefore, the issue of devising rewards and incentives should be given low priority in the development of the Accountability System. A task force should be convened to identify alternative ways of recognizing outstanding performance, evaluate their advantages and disadvantages and make recommendations. The work of such a task force may be most productive after we have four or five years of experience with the learning improvement system. The 10 year financial plan could then be modified according to recommendations coming from the task force.

Conclusion

As noted at the outset it is essential that enough time be allowed to permit the system to evolve in light of what we learn about improving student learning. It is imperative that special effort be made to build educators' confidence that the accountability system will not be used as a weapon to attack their good faith efforts to achieve the state's learning goals. That is not a subtle argument for backing away from the implementation of an accountability system. But the magnitude of what is being attempted is unprecedented. Policy makers at all levels must recognize that they have the power to make the effort successful through wise decisions and judicious rhetoric. But they also have the capacity to impede the improvement of student learning through impatient actions and intemperate comments. If ever there was a time for policy makers and educators to collaborate for the benefit of children's learning, now is the time. The Accountability System is the opportunity.