A Common-Sense Formula for School Accountability
Sebastian Wren, Ph.D. ~ © 2006, BalancedReading.com
First let me say up front, I strongly believe that accountability
and standards are necessary and important. I think that it is human
nature to slack off a little and to make excuses and rationalizations
rather than consistently dig deeper and work harder. There are very
few people in this world who have an internal drive to excellence and an
uncompromising work ethic. Almost everybody finds their own "comfort
zone" and settles there. So we all need a little prod now and then
to make us work a little harder -- try a little harder -- reach a little
I'm not just talking about education, here. I'm talking about
life in general. We all know we should eat right and exercise every
day, but most of us get a little lazy, and we slack off. We spend
a lot of our evenings eating junk and watching TV when we could be eating
better and going to the gym. We could all live in a cleaner house,
but we slack off and let the laundry go a few extra days, or let the dishes
sit on the counter for a while. None of us is perfect all the time.
To be human is to be a little lazy. That's just natural.
But we shake off the laziness when we need to. When company
is coming over, we clean up the house. When our high school reunion
is approaching, we lose a little weight. People are a little lazy
when we can get away with it, but we are diligent when we need to be.
That's true in life, and that is definitely true in education.
Without standards and without accountability, schools would be
a mess. Kids would be falling through the cracks all over the place.
Some people try to fantasize about a utopia where there are no standards,
and there is no accountability, and teachers are simply "free to teach."
Well, that does sound nice, but it's just silly. Educators, like
all humans, tend to settle into a routine and a comfort zone. Given
no standards or accountability, principals will let teachers do whatever
they want, and teachers will teach the things that they like teaching.
And they will give all of their energy and attention to the kids they like,
and they will neglect the kids who are frustrating or difficult.
That is just human nature.
I don't deny that in a world with no standards or accountability, SOME
teachers would still be excellent, excellent teachers. I don't
deny that at all. Some people are just good teachers, and it
really doesn't matter for them if there are standards or
accountability. They have high expectations for every one of
their students, and they teach
all of their students very, very well. I am in awe of those
But alas, those teachers are in the minority. Without
accountability, the rest of us (and I certainly include myself in the
"lazy" group) would teach what we like to teach, would teach the way we
like to teach, would work when we feel like it, and would make
rationalizations about student
In the world of education, there are some schools that are consistently
high performers. Nearly all of their students perform at very high
levels all the time. Most of these schools are just lucky -- they
happen to have a population of fairly affluent kids that come from very
educated, English-speaking households, and no matter what they do, their
students are going to perform at very high levels. I call these "Lake
Woebegone Schools" because all of the kids are above average. A few
of these schools are not just lucky, though -- they are what I call "Beat
the Odds Schools" because despite high levels of poverty and diversity, they
still manage to provide an outstanding education and help most of their kids
succeed. These are often schools that have a history of failure, but
which have instituted policies and practices that have helped them evolve
into "high-performing" schools.
These schools are rare, but their numbers are growing, and I have had
the pleasure of talking to people who have worked in these
schools. They are very consistent about their descriptions of
what it took to turn the school around. The formula is almost
always the same, and at the heart of the formula -- the cornerstone on
which everything else was built -- lies a clear accountability
system. People in these schools always report that they could not
have improved their schools without clear,
high expectations and support from their state and community.
Strong, clear, and fair accountability is the single, most important
ingredient in school improvement. And I would say the accountability
should have some teeth -- if schools do not improve, there should be
sanctions. The recent No Child Left Behind Act provides these things,
so despite being a card-carrying lefty-liberal pinko, I am generally
in favor of the NCLB.
Of course, it is not a perfect system. There are a few ways
I would have improved it if anybody had bothered to ask me.
For example, right now the sanctions that are imposed against failing
schools are financial sanctions levied against THE SCHOOL. If a
school does not consistently improve, it loses money, and part of the school
budget must be used to pay for external tutoring services for the students.
Whoever thought of that deserves a dope-slap to the forehead for
being so ignorant.
The school is just a building -- it is the people inside the building
who make the decisions. The problem is, when trouble starts, those
people can abandon the school and go elsewhere. When school budgets
start getting slashed, good educators are usually the first to leave --
they go to a better school. With a cut in the budget, educational
programs get cut, meaning that students get a poorer education. And
the school gets into a cycle of failure -- cut the money some more, and the
school fails more. That's a silly system.
The sanctions need to be against the people, not the building.
When a school consistently fails, the school board that allowed that failure
should be disbanded by the state, and the leaders of the school district
should be challenged to improve the school or else find another job --
outside of education or outside of the state. School leaders who
have allowed a school to fail should not be able to simply get another
job in another school down the road.
In the mean time, there should be MORE money made available for
the troubled school -- money should be made available for high-quality
professional development for the faculty, and bonuses should be paid to
good teachers to encourage them to work at that school. States should
contract with demonstrably effective school-improvement teams who can
work closely with struggling school to help them improve instruction and
The other part of NCLB that I would love to change is the determination
of what counts as a "failing school." Under NCLB, schools were given
10 years (practically speaking) to get all of their students to pass
the state criterion-referenced standards-based assessment. To meet
"Adequate Yearly Progress" (AYP), schools have to get one-tenth of their
failing students in every subgroup to pass every year. And it is
not acceptable to help the affluent kids succeed but let the children from
poverty fail -- every subgroup must meet AYP or else the whole school is
deemed "low performing."
I wholeheartedly support the "every subgroup" part of this system
-- I love that schools have to disaggregate their data and focus on the
needs of all students in every subgroup. That's wonderful.
But it is the AYP part that I find silly. In one small school
where I worked, their stated goal in their official School Improvement
to get an additional 9.4 children in each grade to pass the state test
year. That's just bizzare, but that is the kind of weird logic
I very much prefer the "Opportunity Gap" system that is promoted
through the National Center for Education Accountability (a.k.a. Just
4 Kids -- go to http://www.just4kids.org -- it is an outstanding site). In that system, schools are compared
against other SIMILAR schools in their state. So small, rural schools
with a great deal of poverty are compared against other small, rural schools
with the same levels of poverty. Inner-city schools with a great
deal of cultural and linguistic diversity are compared against other inner-city
schools with a great deal of cultural and linguistic diversity.
Apples are compared against apples, oranges against oranges. That's
To the extent that other, similar schools are performing better
than any particular school, Just 4 Kids describes that as an "Opportunity Gap."
If you are looking at your own school on the Just 4 Kids website, you
can see how your school performs against other, similar schools that
serve similar populations of kids. There is no reason why your
school shouldn't be performing at least as well as the top-performing
similar schools. (Right now the Just 4 Kids system is best in
Texas, but they are working on developing similar systems for schools
in other states.)
So let's look at a school here in Texas -- Travis Elementary in
Port Arthur ISD. There is a great deal of poverty, linguistic diversity
and student mobility in Port Arthur -- the challenges for that school
are substantial. And yet, year after year, Travis Elementary consistently
out-performs most other similar schools in the state. With over
90% of the students on free-and-reduced lunch, Travis Elementary students
have passing rates in the 70 to 90 percent range on the state accountability
assessment (the TAKS). I would describe Travis Elementary as a good
school. I don't know that they make AYP in every subgroup every year,
but they are doing a heck of a lot better than other, similar schools.
They are setting the bar that other schools should be aiming for. If
they can do it, other, similar schools can, too.
That, to my mind, is a good framework for a fair and reasonable
accountability system. A good accountability system would challenge
schools to rise to the level that has been attained by similar but more
successful schools in the state. That is clearly an attainable goal,
and it is perfectly fair and reasonable to expect schools to minimize the
"Opportunity Gaps" that exist. That is the accountability system I
would have proposed -- if anybody had thought to ask me...
School Choice -- Caveat Emptor
Every day, I read at least
one article about "school choice." Most of those articles are not
research articles, mind you, because there is very little research on
the subject. The fact is, we know very little about the effects
or consequences of creating a school choice system. None-the-less,
in the absence of evidence, many people are adamantly convinced that a
good school choice program is necessary to improve education in this country.
The competition of the free marketplace, they argue, will force schools to
improve or die. If parents have a choice about where to send their
children, they will choose to send their children to the best available
Not that we have ever seen any evidence of that elsewhere in the
marketplace -- there is a price factor in the marketplace that people
who make this "school choice in a free marketplace" argument seem to
be overlooking. In the real free marketplace, the consumer will
the best available product that they can find at the price they want
to pay. People shop at Wal-Mart, not because their products are
better, but because they tend to be cheaper. People drive cheap
cars, not because they are better, but because they are cheaper.
use PC computers, not because they are better, but because they are
With "school choice" programs, there is not a price consideration (not
it is a free choice), so we really can't apply free market
models. We really don't know what would happen if parents were
given free choice about where to send their kids to school.
And even to the extent that we do understand how the free market system
works, we know that sometimes the marketplace is just fickle and hard
to predict. Consumers decided to buy VHS video recorders even
though the Sony Beta machines were higher quality at the same
price. And of course people will buy a much inferior product if
it is marketed and
advertised well. In fact, people will pay much higher prices for
much inferior product if that product is marketed well. Think
about the tires you put on your car -- how do you make that
Chances are, you don't know anything about tires at all, so you go with
a tire with a "reputation" for quality -- a good name. And that
was probably earned through an aggressive advertising campaign.
you were to buy a television today, would you buy an NEC or ViewSonic
Sampo, or would you buy a JVC, Sony, or Philips? You would
go with the names you are familiar with, and if you are like most
you haven't heard of the first three.
So how would you pick a school if you really did have choice?
How would you decide if a school is the best school for your child?
Would you be able to tell the difference between a truly good school and
one that just has good marketing?
Don't get me wrong, when it comes down to it, I'm in favor of
school choice. In fact, I have personally benefited from school
choice. When I was in high school in Tulsa, Oklahoma, I decided
to go all the way across town to the district's magnet school, Booker
T. Washington. It was fabulous, and I was very lucky to have had
the opportunity to go there. And I mean "lucky" in more than just
one sense. Booker T. Washington was such a good school with such
a good reputation that literally thousands of kids applied to get in,
but Booker T. had an enrollment limit of 1200 kids. That means
that thousands of kids were turned away every year. And it was always
made clear to me that if I was not a good student who contributed to the
Booker T. society, I could be kicked out of the school to make room for
another student who was waiting to get in.
That is the first problem with school choice -- most kids do
not actually get a choice. In the middle- to large-sized cities,
when parents and kids are given a choice of schools, the truly good schools
will be full, and there won't be room for all the kids who want to go
to those schools. In other words, there won't be a lot of "choice."
If you are fortunate enough to get in to one of the good schools (as
I was), then you will benefit from school choice (as I clearly have).
But thousands of kids will not even be able to get in to those schools.
What "choice" will they have? Furthermore, we really don't know what
will happen to these good schools when they get an immigration of students
from all over town. It is quite possible that the "good" schools
will not be so good when they fill to capacity with a highly diverse population
of students. A lot of schools that are "good" right now are only
good because they have low teacher-to-student ratios, and they are populated
with a homogeneous population of students who come from the same neighborhood.
It is impossible to predict what will happen to these schools when parents
get to exercise "choice." We don't know what kind of prejudice
and discrimination and difficulties kids from outside the neighborhood
will experience. We don't know if the teachers will be equipped
to handle diverse populations of students. We just don't know.
Of course, in smaller cities and in rural areas, there simply
will be no choice because there are not any other schools to choose
from. In rural areas, kids often have to travel many miles to get
to the closest school. They do not have a selection of schools
to choose from. The next school down the road may be 20 miles further
away, and likely as not, it is not much better than the school they already
go to. There will be no "competition" of schools in small towns and
rural areas, and there will be no choices. The discussion of school
choice is a discussion reserved for families that live in urban areas,
but some of the biggest problems in our country's education system stem
from the disparity that exists between rural and urban schools. School
choice, if anything, can only serve to widen that disparity.
Also, if there is to be true school choice, the schools have
to be held to the same standards so parents can make reasonable comparisons.
Right now, private schools and charter schools are usually exempt from the
standards and accountability that regular schools are held to.
Kids in those schools usually do not have to pass any sort of state test,
teachers don't have to be certified, and private schools and charter schools
can create their own curriculum and teach things that may be discrepant
with the standards developed by the state. Studies of private schools
and charter schools show that some of them are very good, and prepare
their students very well for future academic and life endeavors.
Most private and charter schools, however, are basically on par with regular
public schools -- better in some areas, worse in others. And of course,
studies have shown that some private and charter schools are considerably
worse than their public school rivals. This seems to be especially
true of charter schools, which usually have less funding than private schools.
Some charter schools are quite good, but most charter schools, when they
are examined, are found to be over-all worse than the public school they
are "competing" with.
However, the parents who send their kids to these inferior charter
schools do not seem to know that the schools are inferior. How
would they? As I stated before, charter and private schools are
not usually held to the same standards as regular public schools, and
do not have to publicly report student achievement data. The kids
in these schools do not have to take the state accountability
assessments, the schools do not have to report drop-out rates or
retention rates. They don't have to publish their school safety
record or share discipline records. They can expel students who
are not progressing well, and retain only the students who are
successful. Charter schools and private schools simply are not
open to the same levels of scrutiny that public schools are. So
when parents make a choice, they are usually making a choice based on
faith when they really should be making a choice based on data.
The Heritage Foundation, a notoriously conservative organization
that has been aggressively supporting school-choice programs, has recently
released a substantial database of information about school choice in the United States. I take everything that the Heritage Foundation
claims with a grain of salt, knowing they have a reputation for bias
in the information they choose to share and promote. However, even
the Heritage Foundation school-choice site describes a spate of problems
with existing school-choice programs.
The Heritage Foundation, in many of their own research reports,
finds that school choice usually does not result in increased student
achievement or improved educational environments. The Heritage
Foundation also found that some charter schools and private schools are
run by unscrupulous people who are using the school choice system for
their own unethical financial gain, exploiting the children they are supposed
to be helping. The Heritage Foundations conclusions are the same as
my own -- any school-choice system must come with a very clear, objective
accountability system so that parents can see for themselves which schools
are best for their children.
If we are to have a viable school-choice system in this country,
then we must be clear that all schools that receive state and federal
dollars to educate students should be held to the same standards and subjected
to the same scrutiny. The accountability system used for charter
schools and private schools accepting public funds must be the same as
the accountability system used for the local public schools and magnet
schools. Any student whose education is funded by taxpayers should
be regularly tested using valid and reliable measures to be sure they are
developing the knowledge and skills that the taxpayers expect of students
who are getting a publicly funded education.
As I said, I am very much in favor of school choice, and I believe
magnet school systems provide for us an excellent model for school
choice. Magnet schools are different from mainstream schools --
they provide a viable alternative to the traditional school, and create
a little healthy competition. But they are also held to the same
standards as their mainstream competitors.
With a good accountability system, parents can look at publicly
available data about the school and make an informed decision about
where they should send their child for an education.
A tirade about school finance
I once knew a very wise man who often said, "When ya buy cheap,
ya get cheap." Every time someone would try to save a dime on
a purchase, he'd smile and make that snide remark. Every time a
"cheap" purchase would prove to be disappointing in some way, he would
remark that cheap things are usually cheap for a reason. He always
said, you can be cheap when it doesn't matter, but if something is important,
then you should spend what it takes to get something of quality.
We are very fortunate to live in the wealthiest country in the
world. In fact, our country is the wealthiest country in the
history of the world. We have more wealth and power and strength
than any civilization has ever attained -- ever. Our country has
accomplished so much, and we have shown the ability to break down any
barrier that we set our mind to, with one notable exception. We
can't seem to teach everybody to read. About 40 percent of the
kids in this country lack even basic reading skills. How insane
is that? The one, single most important skill that anybody could
possibly learn is beyond the grasp of nearly half of our nation's
children! What kind of contribution are these people going to
make to our society? What kind of life are they going to have if
we do not teach them to read? For such a wealthy country, we have
a shockingly weak and underfunded education system.
Our federal government has recently provided us with new standards and
higher expectations than we have ever had before. The No Child
Left Behind Act sends a clear and important message that we absolutely
must fight to decrease education disparity everywhere it exists, and
that we must help every single child to master the critical skills
necessary to succeed in school and in life. That is a noble and
laudable goal. But achieving it is not going to be easy, and it
is definitely not going to be cheap. Worthwhile goals never are.
We could not have sent men to the moon cheaply. We could not have
built the greatest military in the history of the world cheaply.
We could not have built highways that cross this country cheaply.
The Hoover Dam? That was kind of expensive. Wiping out
We spent some money on that. The internet? That was very
costly. We have always invested in the things that are important
to this country, but we have never seriously invested in education.
Currently in this country, we spend between $5,000 and $11,000 per year
to educate a child, depending on where that child is. On average,
we spend in the neighborhood of $7,800 per child per year. That
sounds like a lot of money, but it really isn't. That's cheap.
If you send your child to a typical, reputable daycare every weekday
from 7:30 in the morning until 4:00 in the afternoon, it will cost you
between $400 and $600 per month. Over 9 months, that adds up to
between $3,600 and $5,400, just to have somebody watch after your child
every day and make sure he or she does not come to any harm.
During that time, although it is not required of them, a good daycare
center will often try to engage the kids in a few educational
activities, which may or may not be effective for enhancing academic
skills. The daycare provider who is interacting with your child
might have gone to college, and may even have a college degree, but
that is not required. Like all low-paying jobs, employee
turn-over in daycare facilities is quite high, so over the course of 9
months, your child may have several different daycare providers.
Oh, and one other thing. In some places, getting your
child into a reputable daycare center is quite difficult. Just
because you have the money to pay for the service doesn't mean you
will actually get the service. Many reputable daycare centers
have waiting lists, and the wait for some centers can be years.
So on the one hand, you have daycare facilities that cost
around $4,500 for full-time care during a 9 month period. For
that fee, they are responsible for keeping your child safe and alive.
On the other hand, you have schools that cost around $7,800 per year. For the extra $3,300, what do you get?
For starters, most kids will only go to school for 9 months,
but the school almost always provides summer services for kids who
need it at no extra charge. They often provide support to students
before and after school, too, free of charge.
Schools provide safe, free transportation to and from campus
for any child who needs it. Daycare centers do not.
Schools provide a substantial library and course textbooks
for the children to use. Daycare centers do not.
Schools have science labs, computer labs, theaters and athletic
facilities that daycare facilities just don't have.
The school facilities are usually substantial. Daycare
facilities are usually cramped and barely adequate.
All of those wonderful things that schools provide cost money.
Libraries are not free, textbooks are not free, school busses are not
free. And daycare centers can not begin to pay for those things.
And then, of course, there is the service that schools actually
exist to provide. They employ college-educated teachers who
are responsible for delivering a high-quality curriculum to their students
in safe, productive classrooms. School teachers are required
to have bachelor's degrees, and many of them have advanced degrees.
They are trained professionals who are under pressure to show that, under
their care, their students make substantial academic gains, and develop
the knowledge and skills that are required by the states where they
live. The taxpayers pay for this service, and the state, appropriately,
sets clear standards that must be met by educators and by schools.
The state develops assessments and monitors the quality of education provided
by schools, and the state intervenes when schools are not meeting those
standards and expectations.
All of this takes money. When the money is short, the
quality declines. Monitoring and intervening with struggling
schools becomes impossible. Retaining high-quality teachers and
placing them in the neediest schools becomes difficult. Class sizes
increase. School safety decreases. Resources dwindle.
The school year is shortened. Student support and intervention
programs get cut back. In short, children get a poorer education.
Money is not the only answer. Throwing more money at
education, by itself, will not improve instruction. We have seen
several cases in this country where more money was spent, but no corresponding
change in achievement followed. It takes more than just spending
the money. But the money is definitely a starting point.
Spending money on education is necessary for improvement, but not sufficient.
We should strive to set ever higher expectations for student achievement.
We should do everything we can to recruit and retain teachers of high quality
and skill. But we can not reasonably expect those things if we are
unwilling to spend the money to achieve them.
Right now in Texas, legislators appear to be making very little
progress in passing a reasonable education spending bill. Special
interests are fighting hard to keep taxes and spending low in Texas,
and legislators are in a pinch to find a way to increase spending on
education without raising taxes. Something is going to have to
give. Either we find a way to substantially increase funding for
education, or education in the state of Texas will suffer.
Texas is a wealthy state -- as President Bush has so often pointed out,
if Texas was a country, it would have the 8th largest economy
in the world. But it is also a highly diverse state. We
have 4.2 million school children in our state, and increasingly they
coming from very culturally and linguistically diverse
backgrounds. Texas also has one of the highest child-poverty
rates in the country, with almost half of our children (44.5%) being
eligible for free-and-reduced lunch programs. These are
challenges that would justify increased spending in Texas for
education, yet 31 other states with fewer challenges actually spend
more on education than Texas does.
And that is not to say that those states are spending enough.
Texas ranks low among states that probably also need to increase their
spending for education. Right now, the state that spends the most
on education is also the state that consistently ranks the highest in
of education achievement and quality. Connecticut spends just
$11,000 per student per year, and it shows. Connecticut's
score very well on standardized assessments, they have very low
and drop-out rates, and they have very high rates of success in higher
education. Connecticut has set a reasonable goal for other
states. There is no reason why every state couldn't spend $11,000
per year per student (adjusting for cost-of-living). They just
have to decide that it is a priority worth spending money on.
It all comes down to this -- do you drive a Yugo? Do
you live in a shack? Do you dress in rags? Do you eat dog
food? Of course not. You spend money on things that matter to
you. When you want something nice, you spend a little money on it.
It's always nice when you find a bargain, but for the most part, you
know you have to spend some money if you want quality.
Isn't it about time we spent a little extra money on education?
Isn't it about time the states stopped trying to educate our children on
the cheap? I think it is definitely worth a few pennies a day
to invest in education and teach our children the skills they need to
thrive and prosper.
strongly believe we need to hold schools accountable for student
achievement, but the accountability system should be reasonable, and
the resources provided should be adequate. Right now, I can not
say that either is a reality.
• P. O. Box 300471 • Austin, TX 78703
Do you have comments
or questions about this site?
Would you like to contribute
material or information to this site?