Accountability in the Schools: Developing Better Student
Discipline and Management
Research Aims:
This proposed research attempts to achieve the following objectives:
1. To determine the factors, requirements and principles of Accountability in the school setting vis a vis the No Child Left Behind Act
2. To identify the role of the teachers and the school administrators in the implementation of the school’s accountability policy
3. To determine the advantages and disadvantages utilizing school and teacher accountability measures in student discipline and management
4. To analyze the impact of the accountability measures and procedures employed by a specific school in the student discipline and management using academic performance as the determining factor
5. To evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of employing the accountability strategy in the student academic performance
Research Questions:
In accordance with the research aims of this proposed study, the following will be asked:
1. What are the strategies employed by school administrations in implementing accountability among teachers and the school?
2. What are the roles of the teachers and the school personnel in the accountability policy by the school?
3. What are the guidelines prescribed by the No Child Left Behind Act?
4. What are the advantages and disadvantages of adopting the No Child Left Behind Act in the development of the accountability rules employed by the school?
5. What are the effects of the accountability strategy in student discipline and management as evidenced by their academic performance?
6. How effective is the utilization of the accountability measure employed by the teachers and school in the academic performance of the students?
Introduction
Accountability measures and guidelines in the school level rest on two crucial factors: the function of the teacher and the school personnel in affecting change in the students’ discipline management; and response of the students on these accountability measures as indicated by their academic performances. This concern has been given ample attention with the passage of the NO Child Left Behind Act. However, schools and teachers are still in the process of inculcating these changes in their systems. The prospect of integrating this policy in the school system is met with optimistic responses.
The American public, the education profession, researchers, legal advocates, and policy makers all seem to agree that quality of teaching makes an important difference in students' learning, their achievement, and their life chances (Cochran-Smith, 2003). In a recent public opinion poll on teacher quality (Hart & Teeter, 2002), for example, it was clear that although the public strongly favored educational reform tied to accountability, they also equated educational improvement with quality teaching and were not willing to lower hiring standards to solve the teacher shortage problem.
Teaching involves much more than transmitting information. It includes representing complex knowledge in accessible ways, asking good questions, forming relationships with students and parents, collaborating with other professionals, interpreting multiple data sources, meeting the needs of students with widely varying abilities and backgrounds, and both posing and solving problems of practice. Likewise, learning is not just receiving information (Cochran-Smith, 2002). The science of learning shows that learning is a process of developing usable knowledge (not just isolated facts) by building on previous knowledge and experience, understanding and organizing information in a conceptual framework, and monitoring progress, toward learning goals (National Research Council, 2000).
In short, despite different assumptions about the purposes of schooling, the nature of teaching as an enterprise, and appropriate ways to measure teaching effectiveness, there is enormous consensus that teaching quality makes a significant difference in learning and school effectiveness. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) cemented this conclusion into law with its guarantee that all schoolchildren must have "highly qualified teachers (Cochran-Smith, 2003)."
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and gives states and school districts powerful tools and significant funding to improve teacher quality (Poliakoff, 2002). It also gives them an unprecedented level of freedom in deciding which teacher quality strategies to choose. The current law provides a broad menu of allowable funding categories: alternative certification; merit pay programs for teachers; improving teacher licensure examinations; testing of in-service teachers for subject-area mastery; signing bonuses to attract teachers to hard-to-staff schools; and tenure reform - in addition to professional development and class size reduction (National Council on Teacher Quality, 2002).
This paper shall investigate the accountability system in a given school by identifying the role of the teachers and the school personnel. These measures are intended on the premise that it will eventually affect change on the students’ discipline and manageability. These variables will be evaluated with the assumption that effective implementation of these measures would eventually enhance student academic performance. Furthermore, the No Child Left Behind will be examined in lieu with the quality of guidelines in the school and as a framework of analysis in analyzing the quality of the accountability measures instituted.
Significance of the Study
This proposed study seeks to contribute on the literature on the effectiveness of the accountability guidelines by school administrations in the management and discipline of students as measured by their academic performance. Moreover, the role of the teachers and the school personnel will also be analyzed and evaluated with the assumption that they are the most vital components in the learning process. In addition, this proposed paper shall evaluate the necessity and the effectivity of developing accountability measures among teachers and school personnel in enhancing student academic performance. From these findings, this proposal shall develop suggestions in further improving the present accountability system utilized by schools and in improving teacher and school personnel training and orientation that is lined with the accountability framework.
Conceptual Framework
This paper shall utilize the framework developed by Jennifer O’Day (2000) in explaining the dynamics of accountability frameworks and the student academic performance. This discussion suggests a framework for analyzing the potential impact of accountability-based interventions on school improvement. School accountability mechanisms will be successful in improving the functioning of school organizations to the extent that those interventions are able to (O’Day, 2000):
- Generate and focus attention on information relevant to teaching and learning and to changes in that information as it is continually fed back into and through the system.
- Motivate educators and others to attend to relevant information and to expend the effort necessary to augment or change strategies in response to this information. Central here is the problematic relationship of collective accountability and individual action. Motivation must ultimately occur at the individual level, but it is likely to be dependent in part on the normative structures of the school as well as on individual characteristics of educators and students.
- Develop the knowledge and skills to promote valid interpretation of information and appropriate attribution of causality at both the individual and system levels.
- Allocate resources where they are most needed. Information at all levels can promote the allocation of resources — human and material — to where they are most needed. A classroom teacher might reallocate resources by spending more of her time and attention on a student she sees is having trouble understanding a new concept.
Review of Related Literature
School administrators accountable for student progress are openly assumed. For instance since 1987, New Jersey has had an alternative certification system that shifts the professional training of teachers from education school credits to customized on-the-job programs designed by the school to meet the particular needs of the new teacher (Poliakoff, 2002). The quality measures are high-all new teachers, whether they come through alternate or traditional routes must meet high GPA requirements and pass the licensure exams before entering the classroom (Poliakoff, 2002).
The No Child Left Behind Act, signed by President George Bush on January 8, 2002, provides new funding to states in their efforts to close the achievement gap. The Act envisions equity of outcomes among student populations and seeks to provide quality educational programs to all disadvantaged children. NCLB builds upon previous federal initiatives and takes significant steps to ensure that academic results are produced.
The Secretary of Education’s report made no mention of other syntheses and empirical studies (although published in reputable peer-reviewed journals) that conclude that there are teacher qualifications (in addition to subject matter knowledge and verbal ability) that are related to student achievement (Cochran-Smith, 2002). These qualifications include: knowledge of teaching and learning gained through teacher preparation courses and experiences, teaching experience, and teacher certification status (Darling-Hammond, 2000a, 2000b, 2001).
There are at least four areas that merit attention when considering NCLB. These areas include standards, assessment, accountability and parental choice.
The Act recognizes that low achievement often results from exposure to programs of inferior quality where instruction is delivered by inadequately trained or uncertified teachers (Donlevy, 2002). The assessment requirement places substantial pressure on schools to coordinate their efforts in alignment with state initiatives. Each state's standards must be met by the schools so that overall proficiency can be demonstrated throughout the educational system (Donlevy, 2002).
The frequency of citations by researchers and policy makers of all stripes to William Sanders's conclusion that individual teachers are the single largest factor that adds value to student learning (Sanders & Horn, 1998) makes this point persuasively. Finally, legal advocates in several pending cases across the country have consistently asserted that access to highly qualified teachers is a birthright of all children (American Civil Liberties Union, 2000).
The expectation is that states and school districts will make wise decisions suited to their particular teacher quality and teacher supply needs. Although the total amount of federal funding represents only 7 percent of the annual expenditure on the nation's public schools, the new law provides direction, encouragement and focus for effective teacher quality initiatives that have been appearing in recent years around the country (U.S. Department of Education, 2002).
Chaney-Cullen and Duffy (1999) described and evaluated a technology resource, Strategic Teaching Framework (STF), to support elementary school teachers in adopting a situated, constructivist approach to teaching mathematics. STF is a multimedia information resource designed to support teachers in metaphorically visiting 3 constructivist classrooms in which they can watch a period of instruction, get perspectives on critical attributes of the teaching as they watch, and access a rich conceptual database.
Most public charter schools give principals more latitude over personnel and compensation policies than district public schools allow (Poliakoff, 2002). Many charter school administrators identify the ability to recruit uncertified teachers as an important source of recruitment flexibility. Teachers in public charter schools rarely have tenure, or participate in collective bargaining agreements. They tend to work longer days and more days each school year. In a recent survey, nearly half of the schools that responded used merit or performance pay, typically 5-10 percent of base pay (Podgursky and Ballou, 2001). An important quality indicator: they tend to hire teachers with stronger subject preparation, especially in math and science (Hoxby, 2000).
In the absence of adequate yearly progress over two years, schools will be required to develop corrective action plans. If these plans do not bring about desired changes, more radical measures may be required including a complete change of school staffing, comprehensive curriculum renewal, school-wide restructuring or state takeover.
The Act insists that these federal dollars be spent to raise student achievement within designated time frames. The accountability mechanisms have sufficient strength to put all schools and districts on notice that achievement must be in evidence. Additional consequences for low performance will involve expanding parental choice (Donlevy, 2002).
As more schools are identified as requiring corrective action, the costs involved in eliminating deficiencies surely will raise concerns. Consequences for low-performing schools may prove difficult to enforce, as resources for restructuring, staff changes or state takeovers become strained (Donlevy, 2002).
Methodology
This chapter will outline the methods to be used in gathering data: the respondents of the study, the sampling technique, the instrument to be used, the validation of the instrument, the administration of the instrument and the statistical treatment of the data that will be gathered, and how this data will be analyzed qualitatively.
Method of Research This proposed study will use the descriptive approach- utilization of interview, observation and questionnaires in the study. The purpose is to describe the situation as observed by the researcher.The study will determine whether accountability techniques can resolve problems posed by disciplinary and management dilemmas in the classroom and how effective school administrators and teachers are in employing the accountability measures in managing these concerns and in enhancing the performance of the students.
The primary source of data will come from the research-conducted questionnaire. Secondary data will consist of interviews, published articles from journals, theses and related studies on teaching and learning English as a second language.
For this research design, the researcher will gather data, collate published studies from different local and foreign universities and articles from social science journals, distribute sampling questionnaires; arrange interviews; and make a content analysis of the collected documentary and verbal material. Afterwards, the researcher will summarize all the information, make a conclusion based on the null hypotheses posited and provide insightful recommendations on accountability measures posited by teachers and school personnel.
Conclusions
This proposed study will work on the hypothesis that: the higher the competency of teachers and school personnel in implementing the accountability guidelines, the better they can manage and discipline students. In addition, this development would necessitate an enhancement on the students academic performance.
REFERENCES:
American Civil Liberties Union. (2000). ACSL-Southern California docket: Williams et al. v. State of California et al., 2001. Retrieved from www.aclu-sc.org/cgi-bin/ docket/casedisplay.cgi?filename=williamsvcalifornia
Chaney-Cullen, Tammy and Duffy, Thomas, Strategic Teaching Framework: Multimedia to Support Teacher Change, Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 8, 1999
Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, Reporting on teacher quality: the politics of politics, Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, 2002
Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, Teaching quality matters, Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 54, 2003
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000a). Reforming teacher preparation and licensing: Debating the evidence. Teachers College Record, 102(1), 28-56.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000b). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1).
Darling-Hammond, L. (2001, October). The research and rhetoric on teacher certification: A response to "Teacher certification reconsidered." New York:
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. Available from http://www.nctaf.org
Donlevy, Jim. Teachers, technology and training: No Child Left Behind in search of equity for all children, International Journal of Instructional Media, Vol. 29, 2002
Hart, P. D., & Teeter, R. M. (2002). A national priority: Americans speak on teacher quality. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Hoxby, Caroline, "Would School Choice Change the Teaching Profession?" NBER Working Paper 7866 (August 2000).
National Council on Teacher Quality, A Consumer's Guide to Teacher Quality. Opportunity and Challenge in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ed. Anne
O’Day, Jennifer. (2000). Complexity, Accountability, and School Improvement, Harvard Educational Review, Volume 72, Number 3 Fall 2000.Rogers Poliakoff, Washington, D.C. (2002). National Research Council. (2001). Scientific inquiry in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Podgursky, Michael and Balou, Dale, Personnel Policy in Charter Schools, Washington, D.C. (2001).
Poliakoff, Michael, The path to teacher quality from regulation to local responsibility, Spectrum: the Journal of State Government, Vol. 75, 2002
Sanders, W., & Horn, S. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) database: Implications for educational evaluation and research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(3), 247-256. Sybouts, Ward, Planning in School Administration : A Handbook, Greenwood Press, 1992
U.S. Department of Education. Office of Postsecondary Education, Meeting the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge. The Secretary's Annual Report on Teacher Quality, Washington, D.C (2002)
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment