 
Week 3 - Outcomes and Standards
|  | The Carrot and the Stick: Getting the Right Balance |
| |
Listing of Papers | |
MR MICHAEL BRADLEY
Northern Territory, Australia
THIS PAPER is structured to encourage response and discussion. It has largely been stripped of extensive referencing but does draw attention to three specific authors, two from the US and one from the UK, as an aid in moving through the issues and providing concrete advice. Discussion regarding outcomes and standards is part and parcel of the accountability debate and this does become a focus of this paper.
The Players
Discussion regarding outcomes and standards raise the very basic issue of what exactly is expected of the education system and how it is placed in the socio-economic context of each nation and the world. It is quite apparent that education is a major budget item for every government in the world. Equally apparent is that governments of all persuasions have, during the last twenty or so years, been very critical of the money allocated, complaining of what they see as inadequate returns for their investment. Hence interest by those who supply money on what is being achieved, i.e., outcomes and what is being achieved rates against others i.e., standards.
Concurrently, educators have been grappling with the same issue but from a different perspective; namely, from the point of view of the students, educators and their disparate views as to the role of education in society. Questions have been raised as to what is being achieved, i.e., outcomes and how what is being achieved can be measured, compared and improved, i.e., standards. The monetary aspect has not usually figured highly in these deliberations.
At the same time, and in a context of increasing competitiveness for jobs, changing employment opportunities, globalisation and growing gap between rich and poor, questions have been asked by students as to what they are achieving, i.e., outcomes and how they rate against others, i.e., standards.
Parents ask the same questions, wanting to know what their children can do as a result of attending school, i.e., outcomes and how they compare to others and what is acceptable, i.e., standards. Similarly, business organisations, from the perspective of productivity, efficiency and competitiveness have, and are, asking what their workforce can deliver as a result of the education provided, i.e., outcomes and how this compares against business industry and 'wider' economy expectations in ensuring that a competitive edge is gained and sustained. i.e.. standards.
Throw into this melting pot of interests, those of eager politicians such as current US Presidential candidates Bush and Gore, Prime Minister Blair and President Clinton, capitalising on 'education' as a known vote winner and a very complex situation arises.
It is a situation in which the classroom teacher faces the dilemma of attempting to implement a program of work and assessment of that work which will demonstrate what students successfully achieve i.e. outcomes and do so at a level that is appropriate, acceptable and demanding compared to others, i.e., standards. This is all to be achieved within a framework of research evidence that shows that students learn at different rates and need to be treated as individuals as distinct from cogs in the system.
Teacher Response
It is possible for the teacher to balance these demands and to produce an enjoyable (is there a 'standard' or 'outcomes' related to enjoyment?) learning experience that will engender into each student a love of learning - or is this important? It is not an easy task, given that teachers are often subject to the intense scrutiny of others. Many teachers are finding the task very difficult to achieve, especially in the context of schools taking on a greater and greater social welfare role. This increasing and under-resourced social welfare role has the potential to significantly erode the ability of teachers and schools to achieve desired education outcomes and the standards expected by those already mentioned in this paper. This will increasingly, especially for government schools, be a matter of concern but is probably beyond the scope of this paper.
Positioning
The understanding of what outcomes and standards are by educators is not the same in all countries, and this in itself is confusing. What is now generally understood, though, is the need to develop positions on outcomes and standards and that these positions must be creditable.
To progress the discussion further, positions must be developed that clearly outline what is understood by outcomes by those expected to deliver them, i.e., teacher, use them, i.e., students and employees and those who pay for them, i.e., community including government. These three need to come together to develop common understandings. If common understandings can be achieved then more time, effort and resources can be allocated to the teaching/learning process to improve what is delivered for all students.
To reach common understandings will require current embedded positions to be moved on part of each party. Reluctance on behalf of any one interest group to move is counter-productive in the long run. Currently, the education fraternity has been marginalised in many countries, with many not even being at the table to discuss the issues. Instead, government and business have been setting the pace. This is not a very good situation, but does reflect a 'top down' approach and the current weakness of the educator's position in debate. It is also very silly as it disenfranchises those who ultimately have to deliver, i.e., the teacher. These disenfranchised people will 'work' the system such as teaching to externally imposed tests.
It will result in limited improvement for some and no improvement for many. It will definitely not result in students gaining a love of learning, which is so important - an importance recognised by Singapore:
'What is critical is that we fire in our students a passion for learning, instead of studying for the sake of getting good grades in their examinations. Their knowledge will be fragile, no matter how many As they get, unless they have the desire and the aptitude to continue discovering new knowledge well after they leave school. It is the capacity to learn that will define excellence in the future not simply what young people achieve in school.'
(Goh Chok Tong, June 1997)
Eleven Points from the US
So, how to progress the issue of outcomes and standards, which are invariably part of the accountability debate? This debate occurs in most countries and no more so than in the US, where there is now a backlash from educators who are seeking balance and sensible workable solutions, as distinct from narrow simplistic ones. Typical of this are K. Sirotnik and K. Kimball who, in Phi Kappan (1999), ask the question: 'Who will hold the accountability systems accountable?'
They propose eleven standards that accountability systems themselves should meet. They are useful drawing together many of the outcomes, standards and accountability issues and in progressing the discussion. Many readers will relate easily to the points raised, which are shown below:
'1. The accountability system must not be driven by a single indicator (e.g., test scores) and simplistic formulas for rewards or sanctions based on that indicator. Assessments of student learning are an important part of a total system, but they are only a part.
2. The accountability system must evaluate each school in terms of its own context as well as in comparison to other schools. If 'formulas' are developed to gauge school improvement, they must go beyond test scores to include a variety of community-, student-, teacher-, and school-based indicators, and they must have empirical justification.
3. The accountability system must include monitoring of and support for equitable and substantial learning opportunities for all students (regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, economic status, or disability).
4. The accountability system must be flexible enough to allow for individual differences in pace and style of learning; a 'one-size-fits-all' philosophy and strict retention policies have no place in high-quality education systems that are sensitive to the needs of every student.
5. The accountability system must include support for and monitoring of substantial, long-term professional development opportunities for teachers and administrators to inquire into their disciplines and to review and
revise their pedagogical content knowledge and teaching and leadership skills (including evaluation and assessment).
6. The accountability system must include support for and monitoring of ongoing classroom-based assessment by teachers that is aligned with a high-quality curriculum and the content standards of the system.
7. The accountability system must be based on high-quality content standards that allow districts, schools, and teachers to be creative, flexible, and thoughtful in constructing and delivering a curriculum that meets the standards but is not so narrow that it limits the rich array of curricular experiences and possibilities for teaching and learning in a multicultural and democratic society.
8. The accountability system must not be punitive, either to students or to their teachers and schools. Instead, through injections of human and fiscal resources, the accountability system must nurture and support districts and schools in decline or those making little or no progress.
9. The accountability system must ensure that the teachers and administrators entrusted to make the desired improvements in teaching and learning are compensated for their efforts at levels commensurate with the critical importance of their work.
10. The goals of the accountability system and the funding required to pay for all the things we have mentioned above must have the support of the public and of the political infrastructure.
11. The public and the political infrastructure must support the accountability system by protecting the educational functions of schools and protecting the school environments within which those functions take place. If the schools must take on many other functions required to sustain the health and welfare of their students, then substantial human and fiscal resources must be added, supported, and sustained.'
Whilst the above eleven are well intentioned, thoughtful and a little provocative, they are also in a US test 'mad' environment that is not applicable everywhere else. However, common traits and principles can be seen. For example, the eleven emphasise the individual and the need to develop programs that reflect the individual's needs. The eleven could quite easily result in a vigorous and very response education system that develops very high standards and produces students who would be very adaptable and excellent workers: thinking and intelligent people who would be able to use their initiative and contribute positively to the economy.
Surely common ground with non-educators can be achieved on all of the eleven points when considered carefully - would this not be a great start? However, and critically, the eleven points do not provide a simple response to the issues. As such they do not lend themselves to the 15-second media bite or to two sentences in a tabloid article. Currently this inability to 'popularise' real education solutions is a significant drawback. This is especially the case whilst there remains a belief that solutions can be so simplified.
Seven Points from the UK
In the UK, MacBeath (1999) address the issue of outcomes and standards in particular the gross simplicity of many exam orientated systems, that the public easily understood, or think they understood, but that do not really address the issues. Value added approaches have been emphasized as being better but they too lack the simplicity of examination type data. MacBeath draws attention to two possible ways of raising standards. One is the direct focus on outcomes - teaching to the text, employing consultants to help in strategies to 'beat the examiner' and route two, creating what the Scottish Office of Education and Industry Department described as 'an ethos of achievement'. Route one produces immediate gratification: improved examination results (outcomes) for students. This gratification is there to counter public and business criticism.
A deeper analysis however reveals many distasteful side effects. This includes an inability to sustain initial improvement over time, marginalisation of students who are not 'exam orientated', narrowing of teaching (teach what is what is to be examined) and little overall improvement especially in regards attitudes to education, work and society. As Skirotnik and Kimball (1999) say:
'We know for certain that accountability systems that are dictatorial and punitive, ones that rule more by fear than by reason and compassion, will invariably narrow the curriculum and limit the educational opportunities of students by virtue of the choices that teachers feel compelled to make, "What is tested is what is taught" cannot be the sole guiding principle.'
Value added techniques do overcome some of these disadvantages but, as already stated, are more difficult to comprehend and can be misused. This is not to say that outcomes as shown by testing or value added indicators do not have a place. They do as part of the overall package of changing schools to guarantee successful learning outcomes for all students.
MacBeath sees this as route two. In route two the focus is on creating conditions that are most likely to produce successful learning outcomes for all students. In other words, a focus on the school and developing productive and effective classroom situations. MacBeath's findings, running across a number of research studies is that improving schools were those with:
- 'robust internal systems for monitoring of achievement;
- a repertoire of evaluation methodologies available to teachers and students;
- target setting at school, teacher and individual student level;
- systematic strategies for peer observation, collaboration, reflective;
- inquiry, risk-taking;
- self-evaluation embedded in classroom and school practice;
- networking and exchange of good practice with other schools;
- shared leadership; and,
- a learning culture'
Blair's Beacon Schools have also focused on this second route. MacBeath argues that seven stages come together over time to develop a coherent whole in which improvement and enhanced outcome is the longer term. These stages are listed here.
'1. Promote a learning climate. The school leadership models learning in action. Instead of MBWA (Management By Walking About) they exemplify LBWA (learning by walking about).
2. Identify the green shoots of growth. Where in the school are the exemplary learners - not necessarily the very best teachers but those who are most open and keen to learn and to share? Who are the best listeners? Who encourage feedback from their pupils? Who talk about learning in the staffroom? Who seek out alliances with other teachers across disciplines? Which members of staff use positive language? Who are the energy creators? 'Appreciative inquiry' is the name given to this process (Brighouse and Woods, 1999).
3. Identify the barriers. Improvement is less likely to be helped by innovation than by removing the blocks and barriers to learning.
4. Share pedagogical leadership. Provide opportunities for exemplary learners to exercise leadership. Provide opportunities for newly qualified teachers to lead groups and build teams. Involve pupils in feedback and decisions about learning and teaching and give them a role consultative and policy-making groups.
5. Create intelligence from within. Make learning the central focus and business of the school. Encourage the belief that knowledge can be found as much within the school as from external sources. Build alliances and networks of learners. Provide time and support for the networkers. Challenge people to move beyond their comfort zone.
6. Use critical friends. Engage one or more outside 'experts' to work with staff as a friend of the schools but ensure that they are people with the skills not only to listen sensitively and support good practice but with the skills and courage to challenge and to draw theory out of tacit knowledge.
7. Build resilient networks. Seek out allies from whom you can learn and who are equally open to learning from you. They may be local or they may be in another country.'
The above seven do not claim that the issues are simple or easy to deal with or that the same solution will apply in all situations or remain the same over time. They do claim that tackling them in 'real' as distinct from simplistic superficial fashion will result in enhanced outcomes and higher standards for all students rather than for 'some' students.
Australia
In Australia there is considerable interest in addressing the outcomes and standards issues and, hopefully, learning from overseas experience. As with overseas, the debate revolves around accountability. The coming together of opinions to develop KLAs - according to Caldwell (1999) a win-win-win for community, teachers and students, despite overcrowding profiles and national testing without undue interference on teachers, are examples of common approaches. But, as elsewhere, it is difficult to ascertain with any degree of certainty whether things in classrooms for the majority of students have actually changed.
There is clearly a move in Australia, especially by government, to obtain more hard-edged information on how schools are performing and to become more data rich. This can be to the benefit of practice if properly handled. Gathering hard data and being data rich need not be at the expense of improving teaching. For example target setting as a process, as distinct from an end product, is excellent in galvanising staff and their approach to teaching. Profiling, when used as a curriculum development tool, likewise provides an excellent mechanism with which to review the curriculum and to encourage the use of more appropriate assessment tools.
What needs to be avoided is the narrowing of what is taught to meet the needs of data gathering and to allow this exercise to dominate proceedings. We are probably at that decision-making stage of either allocating considerable amounts of money singularly measuring, comparing and reporting outcomes against standards or addressing the issues by having adequate control and reporting of standards matched by investing proportionately more money into developing the best teaching learning situations. From overseas experience and comment, it would appear that ultimately it is going to be more profitable to invest in a minimalist, though efficient and effective, monitoring system with proportionally more of the education budget devoted to improving the teaching learning situation to guarantee improved learning outcomes for all students. In other words, crudely put, a carrot and stick approach with more carrot than stick.
But then what do you think?
_____________________________________________________________
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mr Michael Bradley is Principal of Sanderson High School, in Darwin, Northern Territory. This is a school noted for its development of a unitized vertical timetable and strong vertical pastoral care model. He has held the position since 1993 and was previously an assistant principal, curriculum developer, curriculum consultant, teacher, adviser and union official. Michael's original training was in the UK in the early 1970's. He studied at Reading and Manchester Universities before migrating to Australia, and initially teaching in Victoria, before heading north to the Territory. He received his Masters degree from the NT University. Michael has also worked in WA, with colleagues in Queensland, SA, NSW and Victoria and overseas as a consultant. He has written on numerous topics including timetabling, staff appraisal and performance, curriculum development and is currently a member of the Editorial Board of 'Principal Matters'. His current interests include international education, staff appraisal and professional development all linked to improving teaching learning.
Michael Bradley can be contacted by email at:
michael.bradley@sanderson.nt.edu.au
_____________________________________________________________
REFERENCES
Brighouse, T. and Woods, D. (1999) How to Improve Your School, London, Routledge.
Caldwell, B. (1999) A 'Third Way' in Resourcing the Creation of World Class Schools in Australia Curriculum Perspectives Vol. 19 No 1 April 1999.
MacBeath, J. (1999) Improving Education Outcomes: an international perspective. Paper presented at workshop.
MacBeath, J. (1999) Schools Must Speak for Themselves, London, Routledge.
Sirotnik, K. A. and Kimball, K. (1999) Standards for Standards-Based Accountability Systems: Who will hold the accountability systems accountable? Phi Delta Kappan Vol. 81 Number 3 November 1999.
|
|
| | |
