Every student and every person should have a voice about how they get measured.
-7th grade student co-researcher
For the last fifteen years, the discussion of school accountability has focused on standardized tests. Tests have measured our schools, our teachers, and our students. Though there have always been questions about this approach, recently research and shifts in public opinion have begun to undermine the paradigm that these assessments provide the best framework for evaluating the effectiveness of schools (Associated Press, 2015; Kamenetz, 2015; Darling-Hammond et al., 2014; Strauss, 2013; and Matthews, 2008). As a result, states have begun to discuss different methods for measuring schools. California is an example of this trend; the state is currently transitioning from a system of measuring schools that relied primarily on standardized tests, Academic Performance Index (API) to Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAP), a new system that takes into account multiple measures based on the state’s eight priority areas.
Though this shift represents a unique opportunity to move away from a systematic over-reliance on standardized tests, it also raises the question: how do we measure schools? This question requires us to examine what is most important about schools. What do we value and what do we expect from schools? When should we measure the inputs, like teacher quality or implementation of standards, and when should we measure the outcomes, like student achievement? Schools are complex systems and we could measure many different elements. In a 2014 article in the Huffington Post, education thought leader Diane Ravitch suggested fourteen different possible metrics to consider our in accountability 2.0 system including:
To explore this question, I worked with a group of student co-researchers to design and implement a survey for students about what they thought we should use to measure schools. In addition to administering this survey to their middle school peers, students decided to also survey high school students to see if the responses were similar. A group of student co-researchers met regularly to discuss the data and draw conclusions. Based on data from those sources, we uncovered three major themes: 1) determining school success is complex and should incorporate multiple variables 2) including relationships is an important part of assessing schools 3) incorporating student voice in the process was empowering for the students.
The first finding, schools should be evaluated with multiple measures, aligns with current research on redefining accountability framework (Darling-Hammond, 2014 and Kamenetz, 2015) and recent policy shifts in California (Fensterwald, 2012). The idea, however, that relationships should be a component of how we measure schools is relatively new. Though schools are currently experimenting with using multiple metrics that try to measure other seeminglyintangible and not strictly academic outcomes, such as: social emotional skills, hope, grit, creativity and most traditionally student engagement (Duckworth, 2015; Kamenetz, 2015; Berger, 2014; People for Education, 2013; and Robelen, 2012), I did not find any schools or states that have or are discussing measuring relationships to assess a school even though research (Barth 2006) has repeatedly shown relationships are foundational to school success.
These findings suggest next steps for policymakers, district and school leaders, and all educators. For policymakers, this research suggests they should support frameworks for accountability that include multiple measures. Attempting to evaluate with only one or two metrics, artificially narrows what we value in schools. Though we can’t hope to measure everything that is important to having an effective school, we certainly should attempt to capture a picture that includes a wide variety of data sources. To apply Wiggins and McTighe’s (1998) metaphor, we should attempt to create a scrapbook of a school rather than judging it on only a snapshot. The complexity of determining what is most important to measure also suggests having local control over accountability frameworks is preferable to metrics passed down from on high. The closer the decisions about what we measure are made to the school level, the better.
This study is, however, limited in that it only engaged a few students in this process. In addition the students self-selected so it is possible that they already had a predisposition to interest in this topic and support of student voice in decision-making. It would have been valuable to share this research with the larger student body and have a wider group of students share feedback on our analysis of the data. The question of how to ensure equitable participation in the process remains an open question for further exploration. In addition, it would have been useful to involve teachers in the process. Research (McQuillan, 1991 and Mitra, 2012) shows that investing all staff in the value of student voice is an important step in empowering young people.
In addition, this study is limited because we have yet to see how the students’ research and presentation of that research will influence thinking about school accountability at our school. Our hope is that the insights from the students will lead to the inclusion of innovative and aligned metrics in our school’s accountability plan and influence other schools to include students in the process of determining what to measure. In fact, the work from this study may have been more useful and had a greater impact if we had started with a list of possible ways to measure schools rather than elements that students felt were important to an effective school. Since we focused on the latter, we were not able, within the scope of this study, to suggest specific measurement tools to include in the accountability plan. We continue to face the challenge of the difficulty of measuring many of the elements that are important to students. While it’s useful to know that students think relationships are key to effective school, the question remains of how we measure them. Many of the factors students believed were most important to measuring schools are difficult to quantify.
Even though these and many other questions are left unanswered by this research, including students in the process of deciding how to measure schools is both practical and aligned with a vision of school that honors students agency. As educators, we should continuously push ourselves to reimagine what students are capable of. Students in middle school are capable of making meaningful contributions to complex and important conversations about how we measure our schools and indeed how we hold them accountable. In fact, when we do not include students in this conversation we are not only missing their insights and ideas, but missing an opportunity to move towards one of the few goals of education we can agree on: empowering students to be contributing members of society. As Fullan (2007) writes, students are “vastly underutilized resources” (p. 186) in school reform efforts. We need to engage students in our efforts to improve their education. What better forum for students to learn about policy and research than by investigating and influencing the structures that impact their lives? If we want young people to take on the challenges of the real world, why not ask them to be our partners in figuring out how we can improve education? There is no group more knowledgeable, more invested, and more likely to benefit from engaging in these important questions.
-7th grade student co-researcher
For the last fifteen years, the discussion of school accountability has focused on standardized tests. Tests have measured our schools, our teachers, and our students. Though there have always been questions about this approach, recently research and shifts in public opinion have begun to undermine the paradigm that these assessments provide the best framework for evaluating the effectiveness of schools (Associated Press, 2015; Kamenetz, 2015; Darling-Hammond et al., 2014; Strauss, 2013; and Matthews, 2008). As a result, states have begun to discuss different methods for measuring schools. California is an example of this trend; the state is currently transitioning from a system of measuring schools that relied primarily on standardized tests, Academic Performance Index (API) to Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAP), a new system that takes into account multiple measures based on the state’s eight priority areas.
Though this shift represents a unique opportunity to move away from a systematic over-reliance on standardized tests, it also raises the question: how do we measure schools? This question requires us to examine what is most important about schools. What do we value and what do we expect from schools? When should we measure the inputs, like teacher quality or implementation of standards, and when should we measure the outcomes, like student achievement? Schools are complex systems and we could measure many different elements. In a 2014 article in the Huffington Post, education thought leader Diane Ravitch suggested fourteen different possible metrics to consider our in accountability 2.0 system including:
- How many children produced documentaries or videos?
- How many children engaged in science experiments? How many started a project in science and completed it?
- How many children learned robotics?
- How many children wrote stories of more than five pages, whether fiction or nonfiction?
- How often did children have the chance to draw, paint, make videos, or sculpt?
- How many children wrote poetry? Short stories? Novels? History research papers?
- How many children performed service in their community to help others?
- How many children were encouraged to design an invention or to redesign a common item?
To explore this question, I worked with a group of student co-researchers to design and implement a survey for students about what they thought we should use to measure schools. In addition to administering this survey to their middle school peers, students decided to also survey high school students to see if the responses were similar. A group of student co-researchers met regularly to discuss the data and draw conclusions. Based on data from those sources, we uncovered three major themes: 1) determining school success is complex and should incorporate multiple variables 2) including relationships is an important part of assessing schools 3) incorporating student voice in the process was empowering for the students.
The first finding, schools should be evaluated with multiple measures, aligns with current research on redefining accountability framework (Darling-Hammond, 2014 and Kamenetz, 2015) and recent policy shifts in California (Fensterwald, 2012). The idea, however, that relationships should be a component of how we measure schools is relatively new. Though schools are currently experimenting with using multiple metrics that try to measure other seeminglyintangible and not strictly academic outcomes, such as: social emotional skills, hope, grit, creativity and most traditionally student engagement (Duckworth, 2015; Kamenetz, 2015; Berger, 2014; People for Education, 2013; and Robelen, 2012), I did not find any schools or states that have or are discussing measuring relationships to assess a school even though research (Barth 2006) has repeatedly shown relationships are foundational to school success.
These findings suggest next steps for policymakers, district and school leaders, and all educators. For policymakers, this research suggests they should support frameworks for accountability that include multiple measures. Attempting to evaluate with only one or two metrics, artificially narrows what we value in schools. Though we can’t hope to measure everything that is important to having an effective school, we certainly should attempt to capture a picture that includes a wide variety of data sources. To apply Wiggins and McTighe’s (1998) metaphor, we should attempt to create a scrapbook of a school rather than judging it on only a snapshot. The complexity of determining what is most important to measure also suggests having local control over accountability frameworks is preferable to metrics passed down from on high. The closer the decisions about what we measure are made to the school level, the better.
This study is, however, limited in that it only engaged a few students in this process. In addition the students self-selected so it is possible that they already had a predisposition to interest in this topic and support of student voice in decision-making. It would have been valuable to share this research with the larger student body and have a wider group of students share feedback on our analysis of the data. The question of how to ensure equitable participation in the process remains an open question for further exploration. In addition, it would have been useful to involve teachers in the process. Research (McQuillan, 1991 and Mitra, 2012) shows that investing all staff in the value of student voice is an important step in empowering young people.
In addition, this study is limited because we have yet to see how the students’ research and presentation of that research will influence thinking about school accountability at our school. Our hope is that the insights from the students will lead to the inclusion of innovative and aligned metrics in our school’s accountability plan and influence other schools to include students in the process of determining what to measure. In fact, the work from this study may have been more useful and had a greater impact if we had started with a list of possible ways to measure schools rather than elements that students felt were important to an effective school. Since we focused on the latter, we were not able, within the scope of this study, to suggest specific measurement tools to include in the accountability plan. We continue to face the challenge of the difficulty of measuring many of the elements that are important to students. While it’s useful to know that students think relationships are key to effective school, the question remains of how we measure them. Many of the factors students believed were most important to measuring schools are difficult to quantify.
Even though these and many other questions are left unanswered by this research, including students in the process of deciding how to measure schools is both practical and aligned with a vision of school that honors students agency. As educators, we should continuously push ourselves to reimagine what students are capable of. Students in middle school are capable of making meaningful contributions to complex and important conversations about how we measure our schools and indeed how we hold them accountable. In fact, when we do not include students in this conversation we are not only missing their insights and ideas, but missing an opportunity to move towards one of the few goals of education we can agree on: empowering students to be contributing members of society. As Fullan (2007) writes, students are “vastly underutilized resources” (p. 186) in school reform efforts. We need to engage students in our efforts to improve their education. What better forum for students to learn about policy and research than by investigating and influencing the structures that impact their lives? If we want young people to take on the challenges of the real world, why not ask them to be our partners in figuring out how we can improve education? There is no group more knowledgeable, more invested, and more likely to benefit from engaging in these important questions.