This week, I was teaching a lesson to my grade 10 academic English classes about how to write a proper news article. While the lesson is tied to the final assessment for our short story unit, its greater purpose is to prepare students for the OSSLT, the standardized literacy test in Ontario. This got me thinking more about testing in our education system….when did it start? How has it changed over the years? And how effective is it in determining accountability of all stakeholders?

One resource that provides a comprehensive overview and answers some of these questions is Diane Ravitch’s “A Brief History of Accountability” which summarizes the changes of testing in America. You can read the text by clicking on the link here, http://www.hoover.org/research/brief-history-testing-and-accountability

OR….. read the shorter summary I have written for your reading pleasure! Let’s get started by going back to early education in the 19^th century….

19^th Century Accountability

The practice of testing students’ knowledge and skills was common practice at this time, and determined whether or not the child would move ahead to the next level. Less than 1 in 10 students went to high school, and fewer still enrolled in college. Early on, colleges required applicants to pass their own entrance exam, however this testing was later standardized by the newly formed College Entrance Examination Board. Educators were also subject to a test and interview in order to determine their suitability and knowledge of subject matter. But this was their only assessment after obtaining a position…must have been nice! As you can see, testing in this era focused on students’ own accountability for their own learning without emphasizing the role of other stakeholders involved in the process.

Progressive Education, Thorndike and Accountability

The growing popularity of the field of educational psychology in the early twentieth century meant many changes to testing. The Progressive movement, led by Edward Thorndike, emphasized the need for less structured, traditional teaching and more opportunities for experimental learning. Thorndike’s approach was grounded in the popular Progressive idea that “education was a function of the state and that its administration should be a professional matter in which public oversight was strictly limited” which was something teachers happily supported (Ravitch, 2002). While the public was not to be involved, students were also no longer held accountable for their learning. Another key difference was the idea of “social promotion”, or passing students regardless of their abilities.  This change was influenced by both the effort to keep kids in school during the Depression, and the concern that failure would lead to psychological and social harm of the child.

Influence of NAEP

The creation of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) was largely in response to a report published in 1966 by sociologist James Coleman called Equality of Educational Opportunity. While his study considered how the distribution of resources effect student achievement, it more importantly changed the focus from inputs to outputs, or more specifically, test scores. The purpose of the NAEP was to collect data on student achievement at a national scale. They also implemented standardized tests in grade 10 and 12 in math and science. This new focus on test results meant increased pressure on politicians to focus on how to improve achievement. This in turn, meant increased funding for education which often consumed state budgets. School boards were run like businesses, and politicians were expecting a return for their investment.

Policy Makers VS. Teachers

Today, we see what Ravitch describes as a “stalemate” between teachers who focus on resource inputs, and public officials who control funding and seek accountability. There are many examples of tension and conflicting perspectives between these groups, each emphasizing the same point: that educators want to reduce accountability measures, while politicians (and the public) want them increased. While policymakers want more charter schools and private contracting, educators see it as a threat to public education. While policymakers push for merit pay, teachers feel it will hurt their professionalism. Essentially, both parties have the same goal: improved student performance. But only the future can determine how they get there.

I hope that this summary provided some useful background into the "accountability movement" and will make you think further about the politics behind this growing trend.