Mr. Brooks' cattle

David Brooks  gives another passionate and clear-eyed defense of the need for accountability in education.  He suggests, more over, that ed schools need to be held to the same kinds of data-riven measurements.  While he does not explicate what kinds of data are appropriate, he does define as successful "which teachers are bringing their students’ achievement up by two grades in a single year and which are bringing their students’ levels up by only half a grade."

Which leads me to point out the problem with his thinking.  Bad teachers, he tells us are "the ones who treat students like cattle to be processed."  And so for "bad schools," I would imagine (though he does not write this).   Yet, with standardized testing as the main accountability determinant for state, district, school and teacher evaluation, student learning becomes a by-product (though, in theory, an important one) of successful state, district, school and teacher evaluations.  In this way, students are the means by which school systems collect their rewards or suffer their punishments.  The ends are high accountability ratings, which produce the lucre of merit pay or federal cash or an increase of students from education-savvy parents.

As for teacher education, strong programs focus their graduates toward thriving careers. This often ignored dimension of preparation for the classroom means the difference between a teacher who has instant success but a flatter growth curve and a teacher whose early trials lack the bright shining of immediate spectacular effects, but who develops at an accelerated pace as they gain more experience.  The first kind of teacher is what most schools think they need right now.  The second kind of teacher is what all schools need for long-term sustainable practices in the very best interests of our generations.