This major forum features a
discussion about accountability among a diverse group of stakeholders in teacher education, including teacher educators in university and alternate settings, policymakers, and school district leaders.
In nearly all of the public
debate about accountability, there is not enough to be heard about the use of research - based curricula and instructional techniques.
This conflict mostly stays below the public's radar, but it occasionally bubbles up as a political battle between educators and elected
officials about accountability.
The news that an artificial intelligence (AI) system has been developed that can diagnose scans for heart disease and lung cancer raises clear
questions about accountability.
This post isn't meant to re-litigate that decision but instead to emphasize its deep influence on how we now think
about accountability systems.
Funders, their staff, and their grantees talk a
lot about accountability for schools and teachers, but find it easy to walk away from their own missteps or miscalculations.
It took another authorization and a clear signal from the Bush administration that the federal government was
serious about accountability in order for the states to come up with plans to hold their own schools and districts accountable.
I support what you
said about accountability as well — I suppose I am not ready to condenm Islam outright (although I certainly struggle with the partriachy and misorgny within it) as what we often hear is the fundementalist voices where their are voices and traditions within Islam that are clearly different from the loudness of violence.
There are other behavioral management techniques that are sometimes used as well, but for the most part, there is very little
about an accountability group that is overtly «Christians.»
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) affords us an opportunity to let the answers to some pretty simple questions drive the complex decisions that states and districts will have to
make about accountability system design.
It is critically important to give states some leeway as they make
decisions about accountability under ESSA, to allow them to develop their own theory of action and to innovate within the confines of what's allowed by law.