I absolutely hate the phrase “teacher accountability.”

Don’t get me wrong–I’m not in favor of protecting bad teachers. What I am in favor of is systems which make teachers better. That, to me, is what people think they mean when they talk about “teacher accountability.” But that’s not how “teacher accountability” actually manifests. 

It manifests in only one way which can be summed up in one word: “punishment.” 

And the theory that punishment makes me better at my job is more than a bit misguided.

A recent Edweek.org article by James Stigler begins by making a similar point. He explained that the current push toward “accountability” through only end-product evaluation and levying of punishment is actually proven to harm productivity and effectiveness:

“[The approach championed by Arne Duncan and Bill Gates] was called the ‘inspection’ method by W. Edwards Deming, known as the father of the science of quality improvement. Inspection, he wrote, is not an effective way to improve the quality because it has no effect on the process that caused suboptimal results in the first place. Real and continuous improvement, Deming argued, occurs only when the workers themselves study outcome variability and the processes that produce it.”

This is so obvious it hurts. 

Stigler goes on to describe how lesson study has been used in Japanese schools to develop the kind of examination of the “process yielding suboptimal results” that is described by Deming. Through lesson study, teachers identify their own students’ needs, collaborate toward a common goal and relevant assessment of their students’ learning, and then critically analyze and reflect to examine where the process failed and where the process succeeded. Then, they revise the process. 

This emerges as a form of accountability because the accountability a teacher faces is to one’s peers, not to the feds. A group of teachers share common lessons, common assessments, and common goals–all of which tailored to their students’ specific needs–then when one teacher does not produce the same kinds of results as others, the reflection and analysis helps that teacher consider how to better their practice. If they don’t buy in, the pattern is that they don’t stay in the profession.

And guess what. This doesn’t demand millions of dollars invested in standardized tests. Or millions of dollars in norming and legitimizing said tests. Or millions of dollars in assessing said tests. Or millions of dollars in changing those tests when the public decides that those tests aren’t working to make teachers to a better job making kids pass said test.

It does demand a culture shift, and it does demand teacher-time. Think of all the hours invested in standardized-test-training and preparation, all the hours in figuring out how to get the kids to pass the test that is just going to be changed in a few years again so we have to go through those hours again.

About that lesson study concept, Stigler goes on to say:

“What a simple accountability system this is. It is not based on standardized tests, and does not require the statistical adjustments used by value-added assessments most commonly proposed in this country. The results are private; they aren’t published in the newspaper, or even necessarily relayed to the principal. …the Japanese system provides interpretable data directly to those in a position to act on it: the teachers themselves. The test results do not affect teachers’ pay. But then, does anyone really think American teachers would ‘teach better’ for higher pay? Most teachers teach because they want to help students learn. If they aren’t succeeding, it’s because they don’t know how to do any better, not because they are holding out for higher pay.

In this elegant Japanese accountability system, teachers are given realistic feedback on their performance. But, equally important, they are given a regular context in which, assisted by their colleagues, they can use outcome data to drive improvements in practice.”

Accountability should be about finding systems to make us better, not punish us. And I’m not talking demerits versus happyface stickers here, I’m saying that the solutions being proposed when people talk about “teacher accountability” in the U.S. ultimately are systems which have no actual impact on the actual stuff that is causing the failure in the first place.