Pussyfooting with accountability in education

Robert Wynter, Guest Columnist

In this country, we love to hold our children accountable. They are constantly measured with tests, exams and other school and national-based assessments. Performing well in the Grade Six Achievement Test (GSAT) usually means going to a school of choice and being set for life, while poor GSAT performance means going to a less-than-desired school, needing to fight tooth and nail to establish one's future.

All accountability requirements are in place for our students: clear performance indicators and targets; well-defined, consistently applied and transparent measurement systems; rewards for doing well and sanctions for not doing so well.

Adults, on the other hand, tend to reject being held accountable. We do not like to set clear performance indicators and targets. We do not like to be measured for performance; rather, we prefer to be appraised, resulting in continuous debate on actual performance and excuses for poor performance.

We tend to resist all aspects of transparency. While welcoming incentives, we reject any hint of sanctions for poor performance, preferring to define a sanction as a lack of an incentive.

Paradigm shift in accountability

One of the paradigm shifts for transformation articulated in the 2004 Task Force Report on Education Reform is the need for accountability to become part of the DNA of all entities at all levels in the education system. At the 2011 Jamaica Teachers' Association (JTA) conference, newly promoted Education State Minister Gregory Mair announced that accountability was now a buzzword in the ministry, and that very soon schools will be held accountable. It was very instructive that the goodly state minister failed to mention whether the ministry itself would be held accountable.

Speaking on Nationwide Radio recently, Mrs Maureen Dwyer, the head of the National Education Inspectorate (NEI), claimed that her organisation is the vehicle being used to drive accountability in schools. The NEI measures school performance in the following areas: safety and security; student well-being; how well curriculum is enhanced to meet students' needs; material resources; use of material resources; student personal and social development; student (academic) progress; leadership and management; and relationship of parents and community.

An overall judgement is made (no quantified score for a quick comparison over time) and recommendations submitted. However, the NEI cannot enforce corrective actions (including those required of the ministry) and cannot reward nor sanction anyone. To put it bluntly, NEI cannot drive accountability, and its head seems misguided about what accountability really means.

Blame and Accountability

At a recent Gleaner Editors' Forum, Shortwood Teachers' College principal Elaine Foster-Allen, a former head of the NEI and a member of the 2004 Task Force on Education Reform, reportedly does not want to blame anyone for poor education performance. I see blaming as being no different from holding one accountable for poor performance. The only difference is in their respective political correctness.

Therefore, whether we use the word 'blame' or not, education professionals like Mrs Foster-Allen must not shirk their duty to hold specific persons accountable for poor education performance. This must also include principals, such as Mrs Foster-Allen, who lead institutions supplying teachers to the system.

Accountability at the schools

The Ministry of Education (MOE) recently announced performance criteria for schools and has already designated certain schools non-performing, based mainly on the findings from the NEI. The JTA has been up in arms over the characterisation of certain schools as non-performing, asserting that it is the Ministry of Education which has failed to provide the necessary inputs that will make schools perform to required standards.

On an even more recent Nationwide talk show, JTA President Paul Adams questioned why a particular school was deemed non-performing although it produced at least one high-performing student. The host, George Davis, rightly rebuked Mr Adams for his use of "smoke and mirrors", meaning that the high-performing student at the school was the exception to the rule and, in fact, performed well in spite of the school and not because of it.

Rather than appearing to defend 'non-performing schools', the JTA must use its immense influence to correct non-performance in the education system. While it is understandable that inadequate resources negatively impact on school performance, principals must be held accountable for whatever level of resources they have at their disposal. Hiring and firing of principals in the public-education system are the responsibility of the minister of education, school boards and the Teachers' Service Commission. They, too, must be held accountable for the performance of schools.

Accountability at the Ministry

What about the MOE? Should we designate it non-performing, as the JTA president seemingly suggests? Government ministries and, by extension, ministers and permanent secretaries are not usually held, and do not usually hold themselves accountable. Performance criteria are not usually clear; there are no well-defined, transparent measurement systems; rewards are not usually aligned to performance; and sanctions hardly ever occur.

In his 2011 back-to-school speech on September 4, Minister Holness, inter alia, vowed to bridge the gap between performing and non-performing schools. In the 1970s, this was attempted by lowering the standards of "performing schools". Instead of simply focusing on the gap, the minister should focus on raising the overall performance of the national education system.

As the education ministry exists to create the right environment, provide resources and support systems for national education, it must be held accountable for overall national education performance. The Task Force Report on Education Reform articulated several performance targets to transform education, including "60 per cent of the grade 11 cohort passing five subjects at CSEC, including math and English (these being the only mandatory subjects at grade 11) by 2015".

However, we never see the ministry publishing any information to determine its extent of achievement of this target. It is high time that Education Minister Holness, State Minister Mair and Permanent Secretary Audrey Sewell get really serious about accountability at all levels of the education system by starting to hold themselves accountable.

The JTA, having articulated its own performance targets to which President Adams and his team have committed to holding themselves accountable, must support accountability at all levels in the education system, particularly by their own members.

Robert Wynter is the managing director of Strategic Alignment Limited, which facilitates visioning, strategy articulation, organisational realignment and leadership development to enable flawless execution. Comments are welcomed at columns@gleanerjm.com and rob.wyn@hotmail.com.