Authentic Accountability
From LiteracyTentWiki
Return to Accountability
From: eileeneckert@hotmail.com
Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1859] accountability (from the ed. and learning thread)
Date: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 01:25 PM
Roberta, Richard, James, and others, I think Roberta articulated many of my feelings and concerns, and I hope others will discuss the issues she raised (I know I'll come back to them). To pull one thread from the many in the messages, though, can we consider what we mean by accountability? It's another of those terms that has been so overused (in general, not so much on the list) and so contorted that it has lost much of its meaning. Instead of guiding and ensuring progress toward better meeting the needs of learners, it's evolved into a jumping-through-hoops set of empty formalities that often takes educators' attention away from a focus on learning. Several years ago I began trying to formulate my ideas on the subject, stemming from the thought that there's got to be a better way to structure accountability so that it is meaningful and consistent with improving learning and instruction to meet learners' needs. The result was an article with my colleague Sandy Bell of the UConn Adult Learning Program that will be published in Adult Basic Education, and I'm going to copy an excerpt here:
"Instead of outside interventions and requirements that structure accountability as a matter of responding to external standards, efforts in keeping with a complex systems view of literacy education would produce generative activity on the part of individuals and programs; that is, activity that contributes to the 'emergence of a coherent collective identity' (Davis & Sumara, 2001, p. 88). This activity weaves together learning and the documentation, assessment, and evaluation of that learning—at the individual, class, and program levels. Such activity would produce what we call 'authentic accountability.' "
We go on to describe how that could be done, and from the conclusion:
"We believe that authentic accountability efforts ... are congruent with the work of improving instruction and student learning in ways that conventional accountability efforts ... are not. However, authentic accountability activities cannot be imposed in addition to current conventional accountability requirements. Each approach requires different actions. Policymakers should not expect teachers and programs to fit the actions required for authentic accountability and those required for conventional accountability into their already overstretched budgets of time, energy, and money. Policymakers need to choose their paradigm. Educators need to analyze the factors influencing policymakers. With that analysis in mind, they can plan how best to advocate for use of an authentic accountability framework. Though we have described and explained authentic accountability from a complex systems and naturalistic research perspective, it is congruent with a Freireian approach to literacy as praxis, embodying both reflection and action (Freire, 1970/2000). It is profoundly political, and therefore, to some, dangerous. With an informed understanding of authentic accountability and the factors supporting and hindering its being understood, adopted, and implemented, educators can advocate for the approach to accountability that will meet their learners’ needs."
I think that rather than extending meaningless accountability busywork upwards (I don't think anyone was advocating for that, but I add it just to be clear), we need to have "authentic accountability" at every level.
Roberta, Richard, James, others, what would it "look like" if the agencies and organizations "above" you in the hierarchy were accountable to you and to learners? How would you know?
Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion.
Eileen
From: rkmcknight@comcast.net
Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1860] Re: accountability (from the ed. and learning thread)
Date:Tuesday, January 04, 2005 03:02 PM
Yes Eileen,
We must clarify the distinction between assessment and accountability. Both should be free of bias.
Accountability is devised to ensure that funding is not wasted or
controlled by political agendas. This is why we have Sunshine Laws that
allow access to meeting minutes - to ensure that things are on the up
and up.
Accountability also ensures that political agendas do not usurp the
integrity of education's mission to serve the needs of learners and educators.
Assessment and accountability are not synonymous terms - they are quite distinct. I hope this helps.
My Best, Roberta McKnight Healthcare Multimedia Design http://www.hcmmdesign.net
From: rboone@vineland.org
Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1861] Re: accountability (from the ed. and learning thread)
Date: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 03:55 PM
The assessment of Accountability is political by nature. Someone must set a "standard" by which we say there is a measure of Accountability. This standard is set politically by arbitrarily defining the assessments that measure Accountability. Ultimately accountability would just be the dependant variable applied to a function on assessment. A = f(a)
richard boone
From: eileeneckert@hotmail.com
Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1863] Re: accountability (from the ed. and learning thread)
Date: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 09:26 PM
Roberta, I appreciate this statement that you made: "Publicly funded education is a public trust. How do we account for tax funded expenditures? What benefit has been derived from this funding?"
But I think you are boxing yourself in with your definitions of assessment and accountability. Assessment, even in conventional terms, goes well beyond the role you give it: "Assessment is devised to improve and serve instruction, teachers and learners. This is where we test learners with all the various means at our disposal - authentic, etc. - we assess what was learned in order to improve instruction." Assessment certainly includes assessment of learner performance--beginning and ending and the progress in between (although I don't <test> students at all even when I'm fortunate enough to be teaching or tutoring). Assessment can also be used to improve programming beyond instruction.
Assessment is at the heart of accountability--assessing and demonstrating the outcomes of instruction and programming, what's been learned and what's been gained. But I am <not> talking about standardized assessments. I think the outcomes should be measured first and most importantly in terms of quality-of-life and empowerment of learners, by their own perception, and how their learning in a program contributed to that. And instruction and programming should be focused on supporting that learning.
I'm not trying to operate within the conventional definitions of assessment and accountability; I'm proposing a legitimate (more legitimate, I think) alternative. It's not "free of bias" as I don't think there's any such thing; rather it tries to compensate for individual biases through triangulation of data and other naturalistic methods.
I don't think there's any reason to accept the current assessment and accountability frameworks even if the assessments in the accountability system actually met their own standards for validity and reliability. Those ideas suited the Cold War mentality that anything quantifiable was scientific and therefore better than anything that...wasn't, or didn't try to be.
I hear that the journal issue with my article is in the fall 2004 issue of Adult Basic Education (I didn't get a copy, so I didn't even know it was out!), so maybe you'll find it worth reading what I can't fully articulate in a post to the list. My point is simply that we can organize all aspects of education around learning, and we should.
Eileen
From: sgabb@bristol.mass.edu
Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1864] Re: accountability (from the ed. and learning thread)
Date: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:59 PM
Roberta, Eileen (and all ) - I too thank you both for your thoughtful responses to the important questions of assessment and accountability. I too agree in spirit with your statement and questions - "Publicly funded education is a public trust. How do we account for tax funded expenditures? What benefit has been derived from this funding?"
I would remind our colloquia, however, that the Adult Basic Education delivery systems in this country are inadequately funded, therefore a betrayal of the hope that such a poorly supported system can in fact meet the exploding need for such services with quality and assurance of reasonable 'benefits' as defined by those with the power of the purse. In my 32 years with this amazing endeavor, I have learned over and over about the strength and determination of adults who choose to extend their formal education and build their basic skills. I have seen an increased awareness of this need in both the public and private sectors, and an increased willingness to provide 'tax funded expenditures'. However, the increase in funding has been meagher when compared to the expanding demand. Nevertheless, we have seen an increasing cry for 'accountability' from a field still condemning those within it to part time work and poverty wages. (Following is my longish response to this conversation. Read on at your own risk.)
I do embrace totally our responsibility, despite our limited funding, our need to be accountable to our learners. I agree with Eileen that it is our responsibility to engage in dialogue about goals, assessment and outcomes with our learners, in order to evaluate whether participation in the ABE services have indeed enabled the learners to frame their goals, identify needed skills and knowledge, and demonstrate competency and knowledge attainment in ways that are meaningful in their lives. In my experience, adult learners always know why they returned to school: each learner can spell out the reasons for entering our programs.
Each learner has defined purposes: to read better so I can enjoy a book, read to my children, feel like I am smart; to get a GED so I can complete my education, show my children it's important to finish what you start, feel like I am smart; to improve my English fluency in speaking, reading and writing so I can communicate with anyone who requires that I speak in English, fill out forms, write letters, understand what I am hearing.
The 'benefits' outlined by those who frame 'accountability to the tax payers' are listed in terms of numbers, certificates, certified employment. These 'countable outcomes' are considered by many the only legimate 'proof' of our accountability. Accountability to the learners - their evaluation of the services - is not considered legitimate.
Certainly we provide assessment to measure our own performance as well: are learners succeeding in attaining the skills and knowledge we have introduced? But as Eileen indicated, we need to assess with equal importance whether the knowledge and skills we introduce are really in line with the purposes and goals of our learners. Once we are sure our instructional content is in line with learner purposes and goals, we should indeed assess our own competency as instructors, guides for learning, partners in educational dialogue. In this context, as Eileen says, assessment with our learners enables us to evaluate and improve our entire schema for adult education programming.
I am also a realist. I recognize that currently, in order to work with and for adult learners in the current climate for funding and programming, I must comply with the limited, even destructive definitions of 'outcomes', 'benefits' and 'accountability'. I hope to continue engaging both practitioners and learners in dialogue about why this is important for survival in the short run, and about how we can - and must change and expand these definitions and practices in the long run. Through this dialogue we can elevate the voices of our learners as equal partners in advocacy for a system that is truly 'public adult education' - not the few bread crumbs we are spared, but rather the true investment in the natural resource of our learners, whose outcomes will continue to benefit us all.
Sally Gabb, SABES SE, Bristol Community College, Fall River, MA sgabb@bristol.mass.edu
From: rkmcknight@comcast.net
Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1865] Re: Accountability (from the ed. and learning thread)
Date: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 01:07 AM
Thanks so much Eileen,
You are right on all counts. When I refer to testing, I'm referring to all forms of assessment. Assessment can take the form of asking questions or simply talking with a student. But, it gives us some place to begin and focus the learning process. I think of assessment as a microlevel process, and accountability as a macrolevel process:
Assessment let's us know what a person needs to learn - at the individual level. Its a circular concept - a feedback loop - to guide the continuous process of learning. It helps us discern, not only what needs to be learned, but also whether learning occurred from our efforts. Using myself as an example, I check (test, if you will) myself to see whether the direction of my inquiry is fruitful. If I'm not learning what I hoped to learn through a particular process, then I must decide where to direct my learning/inquiry to fill in any gaps in my knowledge/understanding.
From an accountability perspective, if I find that I'm not learning what I wanted in a particular program, then I'll scout around to find a program to help me. I might learn that the program isn't helping anyone - I don't know until I ask. Accountability exists at this macrolevel. It tells us things like - how a whole class/program is doing, whether particular teaching methods are useful. At the program/state/national level we evaluate the merits of programs and methods. By exchanging information about macrolevel approaches/issues at conferences and listservs like this one, we can make informed decisions about funding - to ensure the public trust.
For the purposes of this discussion, let's use the TABE as an example of the dynamics between assessment and accountability (micro/macro). The TABE has a limited scope - it assesses a particular range of skills for each individual (micro level). We know its validity is limited because it does not measure all that we wish to measure. Its use as a tool for accountability (macro level) is similarly limited. The magnitude of these limitations is increased when it is used as a tool for accountability to the exclusion of a broader range of measures.
We need more assessment tools to provide a better picture of what is occuring at the program level. Stites and many others have been saying this for a long time. To get at the issue of accountability and discern whether funding decisions are worthwhile, we have to ask questions like:
What is the process for approving new assessment instruments? This has not been made public by the NRS.
What content are we measuring with existing/approved instruments? This is a source of appropriate concern.
What benefit is derived from particular funding initiatives? This should be public information.
The issue here is public disclosure. Administators must address these and other questions. They must account for whether and how programs and expenditures for adult education serve learners and educators. In the process, perhaps we can link assessment and accountability in a more useful and meaningful way.
My Best, Roberta McKnight Healthcare Multimedia Design http://www.hcmmdesign.net
From: mariecora@hotspurpartners.com
Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1866] Re: accountability (from the ed. and learning thread)
Date: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 10:03 AM
Hi all,
I agree that assessment and accountability are very different indeed. But I would also say that it is not only the political agendas that should be held accountable. I believe that accountability should be a multi-lane highway traveling in both directions and that all parties involved have levels of accountability that they should in fact meet - including the student.
For me assessment is about the progress of the individual; evaluation is about the progress of an entire group (the program, for example; or a particular project); accountability should have these other types of 'checks' embedded within it. And there should be clearly written statements about what each of these pieces means, how they are interpreted and used, for what purposes, and how they interact together.
Accountability for me presently is not spread around enough, and the
demand for it is entirely too top down.
marie cora
mariecora@hotspurpartners.com
Return to Accountability
