Expanding Accountability

In his upcoming LPC colloquium talk on March 2nd, Richard Rothstein of the Economics Policy Institute will argue that public schools should be held accountable for much more than students' proficiency on reading and mathematics tests. Rothstein's talk is based on his new book, Grading Education: Getting Accountability Right, in which he notes that the current narrow definition of accountability as reading and mathematics performance inevitably directs resources away from the many other subjects that are part of the school curriculum.

In Jane Hannaway's LPC colloquium talk, she noted the impressive gains in hours of instructional time spent in mathematics and reading following the advent of NCLB and testing of those subjects. But, as reflected in Rothstein's work, increases in hours of instruction in one area must logically take away from instructional time in other areas. Research from the Center for Education Policy, for example, indicates that while 62 percent of elementary schools increased time spent on English and math following NCLB, 44 percent also cut time on science, social studies, art and music, physical education, lunch, or recess.

However, Rothstein's argument for accountability in subjects beyond mathematics and reading could face opposition for multiple reasons. Chief among these is a strong public perception that more testing is not the answer. The opposition to Pennsylvania Governor Rendell's recent push for graduation competency examinations in mathematics, English, science, and social studies is one example. Those who oppose Governor Rendell's plans - including the Pennsylvania State Education Association - argue that these additional tests will stretch already-tight education budgets and lead to even more instructional focus on test-taking skills.

Beyond the dilemmas of more testing that would be brought about through expanding accountability across school subjects, Rothstein's ideas also bring up deeper questions about the purpose of schooling and what students should learn. In Grading Education and a recent Education Week editorial based on that book, Rothstein writes of both the "cognitive" and "non-cognitive" skills for which schools should be held accountable, including social studies, history, science, the arts and music, character development, citizenship education, emotional and physical health, and physical fitness. He provides compelling evidence that throughout history and today, there has been consensus among educators and the general public that students should receive education in all these areas. Some might debate the presence of that historical consensus. Even if such consensus exists, the advocacy groups and organizations who influence policy push for diverse visions of what students should learn. As an example, take a look at the recent LPC colloquium talks from Michael Cohen - President of Achieve - and Kati Haycock - President of The Education Trust, or compare the ideals embraced by the Core Knowledge Foundation with Edutopia's support for project learning and social/emotional learning. These different visions make clear that defining what schools should teach is no easy thing.

Attend Richard Rothstein's talk next week - or tune in via live webcast - to hear and think more about these ideas.