What Local Control in Schools Really Means

I'm all for teachers getting paid more, having been one myself at one time and knowing what it's like to toil in the $20K salary range despite having an advanced degree. But a new policy instituted by the Houston public schools yesterday that gives teachers bonuses based upon the standardized test scores achieved by a their students is misguided. To be sure, other school districts have already adopted such a bonus policy, but what makes Houston notable is that it's the biggest district to do so, yet, and it could thereby serve as a role model for other big districts to follow suit.

The problem I have with this bonus policy has nothing to do with giving teachers more money, but rather the notion that salary should be tied to standardized test scores. My problem with standardized tests is simple. In teaching, the evaluation given needs to match the type of instruction provided. For example, if I privilege an open-ended, discussion-based style of instruction in the class, my evaluation should mirror it by focusing on essay and short answer questions in which students feel open to respond in a variety of ways. On the other hand, if I privilege a fact-based, teacher-led, book-driven style of instruction in the class, my evaluation should mirror it by focusing on multiple choice, true/false, and matching questions.

Nearly all standarized tests are exclusively multiple choice, true/false, and matching because it's too tedious to grade that many essay and short answer questions in the time that standardized tests are expected to be graded, and quite honestly it's not fair because the person doing the grading is not the one who did the teaching so they have nothing to base their assessment upon. Thus, when standardized tests are used the type of instruction and the type of evaluation is predetermined for a class.

The effect of this is to take the control over the structure of that class out of the hands of those participating in it--the teacher and the students. Teacher and student determination of the direction of a class is what real local control of education is all about, an educational concept conservatives like to say they favor. But standardized testing--the hallmark of the No Child Left Behind Act proposed by the Bush administration and, admittedly, supported by many Democrats in 2001--takes this control out of the classroom and gives it to a governing body far removed from the day-to-day realities of teaching and learning that takes place in our schools.

The Houston bonus policy takes standardized testing a step further by encouraging already poorly paid teachers through financial incentives to further give up local control over the classroom. Some people will cry out--"Well, we need to have some accountability!" I agree, but the burden of accountablility needs to be placed on government, not teachers and students. For me accountability means the government doing all it can to ensure adequate access to education for students and keeping classroom control in the hands of teachers and students. Accountability does NOT mean demanding teachers and students perform in a predetermined way and making sure they do so by tying funding and salary bonuses to their ability to goose-step to high standardized test scores.

One last point, the reaction by teachers to this bonus policy--which was to say it's unfair and an across-the-board salary raise would've been better--is misplaced. While an across-the-board salary raise is undoubtedly needed, this argument should be about why money should not be linked to standardized test scores, not simply about how that money should be divided more evenly. There is a bigger point to be made here than just demanding a fair and adequate pay increase because there's more at stake in this policy than salary bonuses.