Don't Fault the 'Dentist:' An Answer to Critics - school accountability

School Administrator, Feb, 2001 by Jon C. Marshall

I read the metaphor of the "Best Dentist" published as a guest column in The School Administrator (June 2000). Unlike Thomas Guskey ("The Wrongheadedness of the 'Best Dentist' Analogy," October 2000), I did not find the commentary on state accountability silly or offensive.

What I find offensive is the push for external standards and evaluation foisted on education by people who believe that with enough threat and intimidation, we can improve student outcomes.

Someone once said, "If I don't laugh, I'll cry." John S. Taylor's "Absolutely the Best Dentist" provides a bit of levity in an educational world currently fraught with high levels of external control, intimidation of dedicated teachers and administrators, and distrust of those who have taken on the task to teach our children.

For the past three years I have traveled across the United States to examine schools, interview teachers and administrators and assess student writing achievement in 28 school districts to better understand the school systems' impact on teaching and learning.

Faulty Reasoning

I found the arguments by Guskey, a professor at University of Kentucky, to be flawed. In his response to the commentary by Taylor, a district superintendent in Lancaster, S.C., he reasons that the dentist could absolve himself from the responsibility for fixing cavities because he is not responsible for creating the cavities. Guskey asks: "Would any reasonable person accept that rationale?"

His strawman is a setup. His sole purpose is for the reader to knock it down. Thus, rather than present convincing evidence, he depends on winning the argument by default. Who can disagree with such a statement?

What Guskey fails to address is that no external standards are imposed on dentists to define how many and what types of cavities they must fill. Dentists do not have agencies that inspect their end products, count the number of cavities filled or otherwise second-guess their professional expertise unless an ethics or malpractice concern is raised.

If state standards and outcome assessments are such a great concept, as Guskey suggests, why don't we require an Office of Dental Accountability similar to Georgia's Office of Educational Accountability? The Office of Dental Accountability could inspect results from each dentist using a state-established "tooth rubric." The dentist's license would depend upon this evaluation for continued certification. Furthermore, the board could establish a "one-size-fitsall" rule for dental work to assess, for example, exactly how many caps a person should have and how the caps fit.

Guskey believes that end-product accountability is the answer to what is perceived as inadequate educational delivery. He asserts that the end-product assessments will reveal gaps in teaching and learning that can be used to improve student learning. If the sole purpose of education is to improve scores on specific tests, then Guskey is right.

However, I envision a much grander purpose for education, one that is more complicated and difficult to assess. I envision learning processes set in motion for children to last a lifetime, not just until the next test. I see that purpose as a wonderful process for nurturing children to become all that they can become, not limited to the knowledge and skills honed to pass the test.

Compromising Positions

As I talk with teachers and administrators, I feel their frustration as they deal with compromising good teaching practices to train students to meet the hurdles set by their states. Test scores define learning. Teachers are asked to raise students' test scores by simulating assessment of the state tests, participating in continuous drill-and-practice activities and over-classifying students into special education so these students will be exempt from the state assessment (too many cavities, I guess).

In Kentucky, I saw educators demoralized. I visited one school that had gone from high recognition as a "school in reward" to notoriety as a "school in decline" in just two years. The students performed far above average, yet the school was punished for failure to meet the externally set state standard. Teachers confided that they were teaching the kids how to score only moderately well on the next benchmark test so that future standards would be easier to meet.

In Texas, I saw a memo from the state education agency stating it was aware that teachers were using formula writing to increase students' test scores. The notice warned that state graders were being trained to recognize formula writing and would subtract points from students' scores if they were following this practice. The irony of this is astounding: The state sets up a hurdle for students to clear, teachers successfully teach students how to jump that hurdle, and then the state cries "foul," claiming it does not like the way students are running the race!

I identified an even greater irony in this game when I observed that teachers had created materials designed to teach children how to write by formula so that it does not look like formula writing.