Think politicians never keep their campaign promises? Douglas Carnine knows better. The soft-spoken University of Oregon education professor, a longtime advocate for data-driven school reform, helped develop then-presidential candidate George W. Bush鈥檚 education platform four years ago, including his promises to increase school accountability. Now those promises, found in the No Child Left Behind Act, are law. They鈥檙e also the centerpiece of President Bush鈥檚 education record as he campaigns for reelection.
Carnine, who press reports say became a Republican while advising the president-to-be, is sitting this campaign season out. But he continues to promote the idea of holding schools accountable for student performance as director of the University of Oregon鈥檚 National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators, an institute that looks for opportunities to move education research into policy and practice. Teacher Magazine talked to Carnine about accountability as punishment, the mistakes that were made in implementing NCLB, and why he thinks school accountability is here to stay no matter who wins the 2004 presidential election.
Q: Are there misconceptions about school accountability that you regularly run into?
A: [One is that] what teachers do is too complicated to be reduced to a measure鈥攖est scores, for example鈥攁nd that doing that distorts education, undermines it, stifles the creativity of teachers. It鈥檚 true that tests can and do drive curriculum, but tests are a way to respond to public pressure [for] some objective idea of what鈥檚 happening to our children.
If you look at the history of professions, from medicine to pharmacology to accounting, all have gone through a very painful process where objective data used in a way transparent to the public becomes the standard. And education is going through that very painful process now. It鈥檚 interesting to note that accountants used to say, 鈥淓ach company is different, and there鈥檚 no way that you can have a common way of looking at the financial health of a company. They鈥檙e so individual, just like children, that you have to describe [each] company in your own way.鈥� The Depression and the stock market crash changed all that. As we now take for granted, there鈥檚 a standard balance sheet....In the areas where people sense that it can be done better, there鈥檚 pressure to be more objective and more transparent so that the rules of the game and the way decisions are made are open to inspection by the public.
Q: Medicine, pharmacology, and accounting are all numbers-driven. Are you saying you can boil a child鈥檚 learning process down to a pile of numbers? If not, you鈥檙e making an apples-to-oranges comparison here, aren鈥檛 you?
A: I think your point鈥檚 legitimate....It鈥檚 an imperfect analogy, but it鈥檚 still useful. Those professions are looking at things, and education deals with complex psychological issues. However, there are similar movements going on in psychology, criminal justice, and welfare reform鈥攖hese professions are bringing research to bear on the best options for people. And if your objective is to hold institutions accountable, numbers do a good job of showing an aggregate effect.
Q: What missteps has the Bush administration made when it comes to implementing NCLB? Could they have been avoided?
A: When you talk about what鈥檚 been characterized as maybe the largest change since the beginning of the Title I program, in terms of accountability and reporting and consequences, very seldom is something perfect the first time, especially if it鈥檚 complex and large. So, yeah. As with any major legislative agenda, it evolves over time, and I鈥檓 sure there鈥檒l be changes, just as this is a change from when Title I began in the Johnson era....It鈥檚 not perfect legislation, and it鈥檚 not perfect implementation, and the process will improve it, but it鈥檚 setting the direction.
Q: Many educators scorn NCLB. Can you suggest anything the federal government could do to make it more acceptable to critics?
A: I think what should happen, and what is happening, is a form of descriptive research. The chief state school officers [and the unions] are weighing in on their concerns. There are some challenges in categories such as special education and English-language learners, [which] complicate the accountability provision. The groups most affected by it are becoming pretty articulate about what their concerns are.
Q: What do you make of the GOP鈥檚 180-degree shift on the role of the federal government in local schools?
A: Political parties鈥攖hat鈥檚 something I don鈥檛 really know much about. But I do know that the federal work in education is almost totally parallel with the work that was going on in Texas for years. I think that at the federal level, you just don鈥檛 make up a bunch of new stuff. You take ideas that have been worked through for years and years in a state, for example, like Texas, and you see what the implications are for federal policy.
Q: But hasn鈥檛 the 鈥淭exas Miracle鈥� been exposed as somewhat overhyped? What are the chances of a national school accountability system succeeding if it is based on a fa莽ade of success in Texas?
A: I wouldn鈥檛 base any accountability system on the high school dropout rate; we don鈥檛 have an agreed-upon standard for that. NCLB holds schools accountable for reading and math. And NAEP [National Assessment of Educational Progress] scores in Texas have shown students making great gains in reading and math. A related point is that when you increase accountability, you鈥檙e going to have more people gaming the system. It鈥檚 human nature. You have to accept this fact and watch for it.
Q: Critics charge that accountability pressures cause many educators to spend too much time on test prep and not enough time educating students.
A: If you鈥檙e preparing students for a test, and in doing that you鈥檙e not educating them, then I鈥檇 say you have a very poor test. I mean, why would you want to have a test that would show people [how] to do things that are not important? If you have poor tests, and you focus on those tests, it鈥檚 going to be poor education. I cannot overemphasize the importance of a good test.
Q: How do you feel about the fact that a policy you helped engineer is the education-policy flash point for partisan debate thiselection year?
A: The fact that it鈥檚 contentious is not surprising. When there鈥檚 pressure on a system to change, it鈥檚 bound to be controversial. I鈥檝e been somewhat comforted by the fact that there hasn鈥檛 been more fundamental disagreement around the core concept that accountability is needed.
Q: The education field is notoriously faddish. Do you think the ideas in No Child Left Behind could survive a change in presidential administration?
A: It鈥檚 hard to predict, but I think there really was genuine bipartisan work on this bill in Congress. That bipartisanship included a real education process for the [legislators], and there鈥檚 a deep concern in Congress about education. So I think there is a commitment. But the power of accountability resides in the detail. It just remains to be seen, regardless of what happens in the election, how people are going to handle the details.
Q: Why do you believe that holding schools accountable will improve education?
A: William Raspberry did an editorial about...a principal [who] was complaining about NCLB because [the district鈥檚] special ed kids didn鈥檛 make their required gains. But then Raspberry ended the editorial with a quote from that principal where he said, 鈥淏ut you can be sure we鈥檙e really going to teach those kids now.鈥� That, to me, captures the hope of accountability. People say, 鈥淚t鈥檚 too hard, it鈥檚 not fair,鈥� but at the end there鈥檚 a commitment to do a better job with those kids.
