[AAACE-NLA] Tightening up, the loss of leeway, and stripping away quality

[David Rosen]

Colleagues,

I have been thinking about leeway, a word used often now by adult  
education practitioners. Leeway is the  amount of freedom available  
to act or move. In its original context, to keep a ship on course, a  
navigator adjusts for leeway, or drift leeward. In common use, leeway  
means wiggle room, space to accommodate for changes that occur,  
enough slack so that a tight rope doesn't break.  Leeway is what  
teachers and program administrators tell me they no longer have.

Why is this?  Broadly speaking, it is because of public funding  
accountability rules and compliance regulations.  Every state has  
tightened accountability brought about by the National Reporting  
System through Title II of the Workforce Investment Act. To continue  
with nautical metaphors, each year accountability is being  
systematically "ratcheted up" (tightened with a ratchet, a mechanical  
device, that only allows one-way movement).  Some states have also  
added to federal regulations their _own_ additional rules,  
requirements and interpretations.

Some people would argue that accountability is good for our field,  
that it improves program quality and learner outcomes. Some shudder  
at what it has done to our field; they believe that it is making  
cookie-cutter adult education, and has driven good people and good  
programs out.   I believe accountability has some positive effects,  
but increasingly, as the rope gets ratcheted tighter, I see more  
negative than positive effects.  The problem is that there are no  
limits to accountability, and no one appears to be monitoring it to  
see where it has gone too far,  where -- in the name of improving  
quality -- it sacrifices real education quality and service to  
proxies for quality such as scores on standardized test or  
percentages of those who meet federal goals. Increased accountability  
has also driven program administrators to serve those who can make  
measurable gains quickly, those who take the least time to  serve,  
the "cream". Unbridled, unexamined accountability has created  
unfunded or underfunded mandates.  More rigorous assessment and more  
alignment of curriculum and assessment may be achieved, but without  
sufficient _new_ resources to pay for the time it takes practitioners  
to do these well, it results in sacrifice of teaching time, teacher  
preparation time, time to work with adult learners as individuals.   
It strips the quality away in the name of improving it.

Several years ago, in her important paper on accountability,  
"Contested Ground: Performance Accountability" ( http:// 
www.ncsall.net/?id=656 ) Juliet Merrifield argued that  we need  
mutual accountability, that legislators and funders must also be  
accountable to programs and students.  And while some funders would  
agree that this is important, I do not see mechanisms for this kind  
of accountability to occur.

As Merrifield wrote:

"Stakeholders are not mutually accountable. Another area of concern  
lies in the mutual responsibility for adult basic education. Many  
possible stakeholders - learners and teachers, administrators and  
policymakers, funders, employers, public school personnel, and  
taxpayers - may be said to have a legitimate concern with the  
outcomes of adult literacy education. All stakeholders are not,  
however, equal in terms of access to information or ability and power  
to hold the adult education system accountable. Learners, for  
example, often have limited information and little power to change  
the system. Congressional representatives stand for taxpayers in  
exercising accountability over the adult education system which is  
supported by public money. Legislators are often not held accountable  
by learners or educators for providing adequate resources and policy  
guidance to the system."

In your state, do legislators and funders ask teachers,  
administrators and adult learners what the effects of increased  
accountability tightening are, what has helped them improve program  
quality, and what has compromised or hindered it?  If not, it's time  
they did.

David J. Rosen
djrosen at comcast.net