Page Content
Our provincial accountability framework defines and directs the learning system in Alberta today, but not necessarily in ways that address students’ learning needs in the 21st century. The framework was introduced by the provincial government more than 10 years ago, during a time of education restructuring, downsizing and funding cutbacks and it has yet to be reviewed for its effectiveness and future viability.
In 1994, the government intended to make schooling into an “affordable and manageable system” with readily achievable goals. Since then, the education ministry has repeatedly announced its success in achieving these goals, proclaiming that Alberta has the best education system in the world as evidenced by students’ performance on provincial, national and international tests. More and more Albertans believe that this is no longer good enough. While the accountability framework arguably served its initial purpose, it is now outdated and in some respects harmful to the education system, because it reinforces a limited view of the goals of education, undermines the capacity of schools and school boards to meet the learning needs of students for a robust economy and caring society, and has a tendency to lull Albertans into complacency about the performance of the overall system.
Only about 6 out of 20 desirable outcomes listed in Alberta Education’s Guide to Education are measured by provincial achievement tests and diploma exams, and even fewer by national and international assessments. The academic subjects most commonly tested are designed for students continuing with traditional studies at university. However, much knowledge and ability that are not tested but occur in fine arts, practical arts and beyond specific curricula—fluency in speaking and listening, creative thinking, working with others, and loving to learn—are critically needed too, especially by the vast majority of students who never go to university.
More than one in four students do not complete high school five years after entering Grade 10, and the percentage of high school students heading to postsecondary institutions is only 32 per cent, four years after starting Grade 10 (Alberta Learning 2004). A breakdown of the percentage of high school students who go to university was not reported by the government in its 2004 annual report, although historically it has been estimated to be only about 20 percent in Alberta. According to Alan King, an education policy researcher at Queen’s University, this outcome is an unintended result of an accountability system’s continuing emphasis on high test scores in academic subjects (Schmidt 2005).
Parents, teachers, trustees and school and central office administrators have expressed concerns about dysfunctional aspects of Alberta Education’s accountability system since its inception, citing its narrow focus on testing in core subjects and its inflexibility in responding to local needs and priorities (Aitken et al. 2002). Concerns have also been expressed about the appropriateness of testing students with special needs, English as a second language students, and many First Nations and Métis students. Although the corporate world has long since embraced process reviews and continuous improvement approaches to improve the bottom line, the ministry has doggedly maintained its results-driven ideology. Under this ideology, the ministry emphasizes student test results and provides reports about improved outcomes as evidence that it has fulfilled its responsibilities. The ministry, however, is administratively and pedagogically removed from the classroom. It does not have the capacity to interact with students or deliver instruction directly to affect improved learning. When the ministry wants test scores in an academic core subject to increase, for example, it must modify the test, pressure schools to conform to centralized directions, or exert other controls that create distress throughout the education system. The desired increase in test scores may be achieved, but at a considerable cost to students and the system overall.
While Albertans may be reassured by reports of gains in test scores in the short term, they can be expected to react negatively when the gains cannot be sustained or are found not to be real. For example, many members of the general public may not yet be aware that when such factors as measurement and sampling error, family background, and school contexts are considered, Alberta’s top ranking on international tests drops. After looking closely at results from the Program for International Student Assessment for 15‑year‑olds, analysts found that Alberta’s performance was actually fifth rather than first in Canada (Willms 2004).
Already, a significant number of Albertans appear unconvinced by the ministry’s reporting, as evident in poll results. In a poll conducted by R. A. Malatest and Associates for Alberta Learning in 2003, only 59 per cent of the public expressed satisfaction with student preparedness for citizenship, and 25 per cent expressed satisfaction with the actual information received on government spending in schools (Alberta Learning 2003). In a 2004 poll, only 57 per cent of the public agreed that the education system meets needs and expectations. Only 48 per cent of the public agreed that students are taught attitudes and behaviours that will make them successful at work when they finish school (Alberta Education 2005).
In his 2005 paper for the Saskatchewan School Boards Association, Kenneth Leithwood, of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, stated that the minister and the ministry of education should be held accountable for
- building public and professional support for the goals of public education,
- ensuring adequate funding,
- establishing policies capable of achieving the goals of education,
- developing communication policies,
- developing procedures and regulation, and
- providing basic support for district policy implementation.
Yet in Alberta, the ministry’s funding, policy and program decisions, which are intended to improve student outcomes but only set the conditions for learning, remain unmeasured and the effectiveness of the decisions unreported.
Schools, school boards and the ministry must be fully accountable to students, parents and taxpayers if Albertans are to remain confident in and committed to a public education system. All key players must also have the capacity and opportunity to be fully engaged in the accountability process. In September 2004, the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) created a subcommittee to explore how the scope and utility of the current accountability framework might be improved.
A background paper entitled Accountability in Education
was prepared by the subcommittee and presented to the Annual Representative Assembly (ARA) in May 2005.
ARA approved the paper as a place to begin discussions with education stakeholders, business and community leaders, the government and teacher members. This background paper outlines the context from which a renewed vision of accountability may be developed, including a preferred definition and seven guiding principles.
Guiding principles proposed for discussion
- Education stakeholders have a shared understanding of and commitment to fairness, openness, respect for diversity, stewardship and key values underlying accountability in education.
- The primary purpose of accountability in education is to support the broad goals of education and the diverse learning needs of children and youth.
- Information for accountability purposes is gathered in a variety of ways from all relevant sources, and reported and used in ways that respect the limitations of the data.
- Sound educational research and practice guide the design and implementation of an accountability system in education.
- Accountability in education enhances the capacity of education partners to fulfill their respective roles and responsibilities and leads to sustained improvement of the system.
- Each education stakeholder is accountable for those areas of the system that are within its authority and expertise.
- The system of accountability in education is evaluated on an ongoing basis.
Empirical research today shows the harmful effects of accountability systems with a single-minded focus on results (Leithwood). In an environment of growing interest in shared accountability and capacity building in education, the teaching profession is hopeful that Albertans will be interested in reviewing the accountability framework over the coming months in order to make improvements. The profession’s goal is to strengthen the education system so that Alberta is better able to meet the current and future learning needs of its children and youth.
References
Aitken, A., J. Brandon, J. Burger, P. Klinck, G. McKinnon and S. Mutch. 2002. “The Next Generation of Basic Education Accountability in Alberta, Canada: A Policy Dialogue.” International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 5, no. 19 (December): 1–11..
Alberta Learning. 2004. Annual Report 2003/2004, Alberta Learning, p. 34. Edmonton: Alberta Learning.
———. 2005. Annual Report 2004/05, Alberta Education, p. 34. Edmonton: Alberta Education.
———. 2002/2003. Learner, Parent, and Public Satisfaction Survey, Summary Report. Edmonton: Alberta Learning.
———. 2003/2004. Satisfaction with Education in Alberta Survey, Summary Report. Edmonton: Alberta Learning.
———. 2004. Program Foundations: Vision, Mission and Basic Education: Guide to Education: ECS to Grade 12. Edmonton: Alberta Learning.
Alberta Teachers’ Association. 2004. Symposium on “Being Alberta in 2025.” Proceedings. Edmonton: ATA.
Auditor General Alberta. 2004. Accountability in the Learning Sector. Edmonton: Auditor General of Alberta.
Leithwood, K. 2005. Educational Accountability: Issues and Alternatives. Toronto: OISE. Research Report, Saskatchewan School Boards Association.
Reeves, D. 2004. Accountability for Learning: How Teachers and School Leaders Can Take Charge. Alexandria: ASCD.
Schmidt, S. 2005. “Quest for excellence leaves some students out.” National Post, February 3.
Willms, D. J. 2004. “Variation in Literacy Skills among Canadian Provinces: Findings from the OECD PISA,” Statistics Canada. p. 51 (www.statcan.ca).
Frank Horvath is a member of ATA Government executive staff.
Other articles in this issue:
