Two Negative Consequences of the Drive for Improved Academic Outcomes and Increased Accountability

The push for improved academic outcomes and increased accountability in primary and secondary education is intense, to say the least. There are measures to both reward and punish schools depending upon their performance. Jobs and funding are literally at stake, which can serve as tremendous motivation to raise scores. There are positives associated with this push, but there are also two secondary consequences that are clearly harmful to our children, particularly children from the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum and children of color.

In the age of increased accountability, teaching has become much more prescriptive, particularly in our low-performing schools, which tend to serve a higher number of poor and minority children. Attempts to “teacher-proof” education is akin to attempting to “husband-proof” or “wife-proof” marriage; it simply makes no sense. Education, at its core, is a relationship between teacher and pupil. The best outcomes are the result of a dedicated, passionate teacher relentlessly determined to motivate a student to think and behave in a manner previously believed to be impossible. Furthermore, this move to a more prescriptive manner of teaching actually harms the practice. It serves to stifle creativity, as well as retard the development of the profession. In addition, it does not serve to engage the various subgroups of our student population currently most in need of deeper engagement in the educational process.

Second, there is an observed narrowing of curricular and extracurricular options for students due to the increased emphasis placed upon performance in certain subjects. Students nearly everywhere see decreased offerings in physical education, art, music, vocational education courses, and other areas that are not measured by a standardized assessment. This is especially pronounced in urban areas and in schools that serve a disproportionate number of minority students and poor students. So, in effect, we are reducing curricular and extracurricular learning opportunities for those with an already diminished set of learning opportunities outside of school, as compared to their more affluent peers. Depriving these students of rich and varied possibilities for learning will have negative effects for both our present and our future. We are likely to see higher levels of disengagement in our schools and to observe a more restricted breadth of knowledge in future generations.

The push for increased accountability and improved academic outcomes is firmly rooted in the desire for what is best for our children and our nation. However, like so much in life, there are always hidden, and often unintended, secondary and tertiary effects for this initiative. There is no harm in desiring a better future for our children and our country, but I believe we are following a flawed course of action. Rather than attempt to relegate teachers to a lesser role, or even attempt to circumvent them in this process, we should embrace the important role they play and do all within our power to improve the practice, subsequently attracting a higher caliber of candidates for the profession. Furthermore, we should increase and vary learning opportunities in an effort to drive academic outcomes. A logical alternative to what is currently taking place would be to work harder to clearly illustrate the interconnectedness of all subjects in an effort to promote a deeper level of engagement. I believe we can do better.