Home ::

The Select Committee on Public School Accountability held its third hearing Monday, with invited testimony from stakeholders (a variety of representatives from education, business, and other interested parties). However, an unspoken theme of “Mixed Messages” was apparent throughout the day’s testimony as committee members, invited panel members and public witnesses remarked on the conflicting messages and lack of agreement among policymakers and the education community regarding our state’s testing and rating systems.

During the course of the 6-hour meeting, many of the problems inherent in the current system and in any contemplation of a revised system were brought to light, as speakers disagreed on some fundamental issues and acknowledged the complexities of others:

  • What do we want students to be prepared for at the end of high school? This question is at the heart of many of the discussions about accountability and high school graduation expectations. Jim Windham, Chairman of the Texas Institute for Education Reform, called for schools to be held accountable for the postsecondary readiness of students. Although acknowledging that there might be multiple pathways for high school students to take toward meeting this standard, he maintains that being prepared for either the workplace or higher education requires essentially the same skills and that we need only develop a single comprehensive standard that covers those skills. However, others acknowledge the wide variety of education and work opportunities for students after high school and believe that “multiple trajectories”, and perhaps multiple standards, are essential to make high school meaningful for all students. Salem Abraham, a member of the committee who is father to 8 public school students, compared the variety of skills to a football team: there’s not a single standard that each athlete must meet – the qualities needed in a quarterback are different from what the defensive line or the kicker must be able to achieve. Yet each must excel in his own area.
  • Bill Hammond, President of the Texas Association of Business, informed the committee that Texas education standards are far too low and we must increase rigor; increased rigor will require better learning earlier which will, in turn, decrease dropout rates. However, several committee members expressed concerns that increasing goals without attention to diverse needs (see above) will sharply increase dropout rates. Hammond also advocated a quick increase in our standards, but Education Commissioner Robert Scott reminded him of states which had set unreasonably high standards when implementing NCLB and subsequently were compelled to lower those standards; Scott instead advocated a more gradual increase in expectations, as has been the approach in Texas.
  • Most educators would say that students and parents are the “customer” of the public education system, but Hammond strongly maintained that business is the ultimate consumer of the education product. Learning for its own sake as an end goal has clearly been replaced by “employability” in the minds of many.
  • Several witnesses attested to the fact that Texas has a diverse student population and that educators and policymakers want to measure several different factors (achievement, growth or “value-added”, college-readiness, etc.) so it is unlikely that a one-size-fits-all approach can work; yet we have a top-down, single test, single day assessment system.
  • A continuing topic of discussion for the committee is the question of whether we have the data to be able to do some of the things people are asking for. For example, we currently don’t have the ability to successfully track students once they leave high school. How then, can we hold schools accountable for the postsecondary readiness of students? Some witnesses responded that we could collect certain types of data while students are in school that would be accurate predictors of postsecondary readiness, including performance on the ACT/SAT or participation in certain courses such as dual credit. Some committee members remarked that other states such as Florida have been successful in tracking students after high school, but there are lingering questions about the federal law making student records private.
  • There were complaints that districts spend too much time, money and personnel on testing and accountability. However, a warmly received panel of school districts that had developed their own models of measuring growth at the local level made it clear that developing such models locally requires – you guessed it – larger investments of time, money and personnel.
  • There were also calls from these same panelists that the state, when incorporating a growth measure into the state accountability system, let districts decide how to use it outside of measuring student growth for rating districts/schools. For example, several of the districts used growth or value-added measures for performance pay for teachers. Interestingly, most of the districts remarked that they elected to pay teams of teachers rather than individual teachers for numerous reasons, including the inability to accurately match teachers/students at the classroom level, concern about the statistical validity of evaluating an individual teacher’s performance based on student performance at the classroom level, and the desire to promote collaboration instead of competition. Others described using information at the classroom level as a management tool, such as providing intensive professional development for or reassigning struggling teachers.
  • Some comments, including remarks by committee member David Splitek (Lackland ISD superintendent), focused on the need for quick information on test results in order to allow analysis of areas of weakness and time to make changes in the school’s programs. But former Lt. Governor Bill Ratliff, widely considered the architect of our current system who now advocates major change, pointed out that some more complex skills – specifically writing – are not bubble-in tests that can be scored immediately, making speedy results difficult to achieve.
  • Ratliff and others noted that it is crucial that we have an understandable system that allows parents, educators and the business community to feel comfortable with how it works, yet we need a relatively high level of complexity to measure a wide variety of factors and accomplish several functions.
  • Many educators have testified to this committee regarding the high stakes nature of our testing system and the harmful impact this has had on students, teachers and classroom learning. Jim Windham, though, opined that the real world is full of high stakes, and an accountability system without high stakes is no system at all.
  • Rep. Mike Villarreal of San Antonio spoke to the committee before the panels began and encouraged policymakers to commit to providing low-performing schools with additional resources, a sentiment echoed by others during the day. Peggy Venable with the Texas Americans for Prosperity, however, argued that throwing money at the problem is no solution, and instead students and parents should be allowed to opt out of the system (presumably through a private school voucher program).
  • Several witnesses at this meeting, as at the committee’s previous hearing, noted the problems in the school rating system under which schools with otherwise high performance are not allowed to achieve recognized or exemplary status because of low performance by a very small subgroup or on one particular measure. Despite the desire for simplicity in the system, it is crucial for the ratings to reflect nuances in achievement, and Governor Ratliff is among those advocating consideration of expanding the number of rating categories.
  • Many teachers and parents (and surely students!) have pushed for less frequent testing; one of the day’s witnesses suggested testing math and reading every other year instead of annually. However, the growth models so clearly popular with policymakers would require annual testing – and true diagnostic use of tests provides an argument for testing even more often, at both the beginning and the end of the school year.
  • One school district representative reminded the committee that districts need to attract teachers who love to teach. However it is clear to even a casual observer that the emphasis on testing has made teaching a much less attractive profession. One member of the public testifying as a concerned citizen read to the committee from the petition that she had circulated in her neighborhood, beginning with the sentiment, “We, the undersigned, desire to restore the joy of teaching and learning in our public schools...” and went on to advocate for the elimination of the TAKS test.

After the hearing, committee member Susan Lewis (also TCTA’s state president-elect) expressed her enthusiasm for participating in the committee’s important work. Despite the challenges that were illuminated at this meeting, and those that have not yet come under examination, there is common recognition that change is needed. TCTA will continue to provide the committee with the teacher perspective and we encourage our members to give your input as well. Upcoming meetings will be held across the state.

  • May 12th - Houston
  • June 16th - Dallas
  • July 14th - Brownsville
  • Aug. 4th - West Texas (Lubbock, El Paso, or Midland)

Posted: 04/15/08