Sklra, Linda, and Scheurich, James Joseph. (Eds) (2004). Educational Equity and Accountability. Reviewed by Ben Levin, University of Manitoba

	Sklra, Linda, and Scheurich, James Joseph. (Eds) (2004). Educational Equity and Accountability. London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer. 290 pp. $28.95 (Paper)     ISBN: 0-415-94506-2 Reviewed by Ben Levin University of Manitoba October 24, 2004 This edited volume is an important book in at least two ways – in the issue it addresses and equally in the approach it takes to the subject at hand. Skrla and Scheurich have put together a diverse set of chapters looking at the vital question of whether high stakes testing can, under the right circumstances, be a tool to drive increased equity in educational outcomes for poor and minority children. Just as importantly, they have done so in a way that seeks to advance knowledge by building bridges across competing views rather than simply presenting a dichotomized debate. I commend the book to readers on both counts. Some readers of this review may feel they can stop here, knowing already whether or not they wish to read the volume. The rest of the review expands on the paragraph above. High stakes testing is surely one of the most controversial policy issues in education today. Few issues raise more vigorous, even irate, debate than the discussion of the MCAS, the TAAS (now TAKS), the Regents’ Exams and the many variants across the U S and in other countries. Positions on the issue tend to be highly polarized, with some seeing extensive testing as fundamental to educational improvement and others believing that testing is antithetical to true education and discriminatory towards minority groups. Into this whirlwind of debate step Linda Skrla of Texas A&M University, Jim Scheurich of the University of Texas, and several of their colleagues who have contributed to some of the chapters. What makes their position so interesting is that Skrla and Schuerich are passionate advocates for greater equity in education, which is not the typical starting point for advocates of testing. A few years ago they and their colleagues set out to study the impact of the TAAS in Texas. They studied four districts that had shown significant increases in TAAS results, including much reduced gaps between white, African-American and Hispanic students. In several published papers the editors and their colleagues made the claim that in these districts, at least, TAAS had played a vital role in bringing equity issues to the fore and in both pushing and helping people in the districts to improve outcomes. They also claimed that in these districts improvement was not a result of narrow, mindless drill or test preparation, but that teaching and learning had improved in quality. These assertions provoked quite a bit of controversy. Other researchers with different views critiqued the Skrla et al. findings. The very vigorous debate was played out in several publications – notably in Phi Delta KAPPAN, the International Journal of Leadership in Education, and in Education and Urban Society. The latter two journals published special issues with articles by the Skrla/Scheurich team and their critics. This new volume brings together previously published work on the debate with several new contributions. The book has twenty chapters. It begins with a new introduction by the editors. The next section includes three pieces originally from the KAPPAN – a paper by Scheurich, Skrla and Johnson, a critique by Richard Valencia and colleagues, and a response by Scheurich and Skrla. Four chapters are from the International Journal of Leadership in Education issue – by Skrla et al., Walt Haney, Stephen Klein, and a response by Skrla et al.. Seven chapters are from Education and Urban Society – by Skrla and Scheurich, Edward Fuller and Joseph Johnson, James Koschoreck, Susan Sclafani, Laurence Parker, Gary Anderson, and Henry Trueba. The book concludes with five new chapters – William Black and Angela Valenzuela discuss ELL, Kathryn Bell McKenzie points out unintended negative consequences of TAAS from the perspective of a Texas school administrator, Andrea Rorrer discusses policy-practice relationships, Antoinette Riester-Wood reviews implications for special education, and a final chapter by the editors sums up their view of the book and the debate as a whole. The nature of the book means that some duplication of ideas and even quotations occurs, but on the whole this is a minor problem; the editors have done well in ensuring a good flow and progression in the volume. It is impossible in this review to summarize all the important arguments made by the contributors. However several things can be said about the volume as a whole. First, all the authors in this volume are united in their commitment to increasing equity of outcomes in U. S. schools. For many contributors inequities for minority groups are the central challenge facing American education. As the editors write, Despite nearly a half-century’s worth of national- and state-level policy initiatives… despite billions of dollars spent on remedial and compensatory programs, and despite the often heroic efforts of administrators and teachers… the fact that, broadly speaking, our children experience differential levels of success in schools that is [sic] distributed along race and social class lines continues to be the overridingly central problem of education.. in the United States. (p. 52) Their critics share this view, though they disagree on the sources of inequity and the role of schools in addressing it. It’s worth describing the position of Skrla, Scheurich, and their colleagues a little more fully. First, they believe that the U S school system has a “miserable academic record with the great majority of low-income children and children of color specifically” (p. 14). They see this failure as being rooted in many aspects of U S history and society, including institutionalized racism. While they recognize the powerful effects of many social forces, they also believe that schools can and should do better in educating poor and minority children. Their study of four Texas school districts convinced them that the advent of high stakes testing can, under some circumstances, help improve equity. They admit readily that there is nothing automatic about this relationship. Testing is not the only ingredient – and testing alone will not do what is needed. They also recognize that testing in some situations can have negative effects on the quality of teaching and learning. However they are convinced that testing is one feature of a comprehensive strategy to improve equity and remedy the neglect of poor and minority children. ‘…accountability systems have the tactical potential to raise the baseline of acceptable academic achievement for all children, including children of color, to levels at least the same as middle-class White children have experienced for some time.’ (61). While by no means good enough, they say, this would be a huge step forward. They also make the point that the dismal situation of poor and minority children is longstanding, so it is not as if there was a golden age of equity prior to the recent increased emphasis on testing. Almost needless to say, the critics represented in this volume have a different view. To simplify greatly, among the key arguments they advance are: Skrla et al. are pointing to a few very unusual school districts; the situation in the vast majority of cases is far less positive; Evidence other than the TAAS, such as drop out rates or NAEP scores, give a very different picture, even in some of the same districts; Inequality in education is primarily a result of forces outside the school and must be addressed outside the school system, not just through education reform. At a technical level, the debate in this volume points to some important research issues. Might it be possible to get greater consensus on what measures would count as evidence of growing or decreasing equity? One of the problems in the volume is the use of so many different indicators, over different periods of time, with different criteria for success. How do we fairly compare schools with each other? How do we fairly compare schools over time? Perhaps with some effort researchers on various sides of the debate could come closer to some common standards and measurements in these important areas, which would help focus the debate more on substance and less on arguments about methodology and measurement. The third criticism listed earlier – the primacy of non-educational factors in creating inequality - raises an important issue that affects much of the discussion of education and poverty, which is the frequent lack of a theoretical frame to account for inequities in the school system. One of the interesting debates in education policy currently concerns the degree to which schools can and should be expected to overcome social inequalities. The debate is an interesting one both ideologically and empirically in that some of those who would see themselves as most committed to greater equity take the position that schools cannot do very much because the causes of inequity lie elsewhere, while others, some of whom would be quite conservative in their approach to equity, take the stance that schools could and should to more to promote it. Presumably one’s position on this issue should depend on one’s explanation of inequality. If inequality is fundamentally rooted in basic social structures, then it is likely that schools will be able to play only a limited role at best in changing the situation. Yet this point seems so seldom acknowledged by either side in the debate. Skrla and Scheurich, to their credit, are quite clear on it, taking the view – with which I happen to agree – that while inequality is primarily created and sustained by broader social forces, schools can and should play a significant role in efforts to improve equity. One missing piece for me in the Skrla et al. account of their research in this book is the lack of description of the actual practices undertaken by the districts they studied to improve equity. The researchers give a great deal of emphasis to leadership and culture, and cite many comments from district staff about their increasing focus on equity, but I would have liked to know more about the specific changes in instruction, staffing, resourcing, support services, parent relations and other areas that are thought to have produced the gains cited. I was particularly struck by the second key feature of the book – the commitment of the editors to engage in and support an informed and reasoned debate on these important issues. As Skrla and Scheurich write, ‘…this book, taken as a whole, is intended to move beyond a counterproductive insistence on a single truth and, instead, to push the discourse about accountability, testing and educational equity in public schools usefully forward’ (p 1-2). They maintain this purpose throughout. Thus their responses to their critics, some of whom are not gentle, is constantly one of seeking to learn and to advance the pursuit of equity, unlike many academic debates in which there appears to be a firm determination to defend one’s own position at all costs. In one of their responses they write about the importance of ‘…resisting the temptation to polarize and argue adversarially and, instead, to engage in respectful dialogue that appreciatively acknowledges and values wider-ranging and diverse results and perspectives’ (p. 105) as a way of advancing knowledge about equity. This is a vitally important goal given the degree to which debates over education policy are often sharply divisive and partisan. Skrla and Scheurich are not naively suggesting, as some researchers do, that we should eschew political debate and rely on objective social science to tell us what to do. They recognize full well that the issues of concern to them around educational equity are deeply value-laden and will never be resolved through some appeal to a supposedly neutral science. It seems to me that they are seeking a middle ground between the view that science can determine social policy and the view that everything is ideological so there can only be partisan debate. In taking this approach they are aligning themselves with scholars such as Charles Lindblom, David Cohen, Deborah Stone and Alan Wolfe, all of whom have also tried to find a meaningful and useful place for social science while recognizing the limits of science and the primacy of the broader public and political debate over these important questions. As I hope is evident from this review, the Skrla and Scheurich volume is an important and useful book conceptually and empirically. I commend the editors for tackling these vital issues in such an open way. I hope their approach will be emulated thus contributing to shaping better education policy and practice. About the Reviewer Ben Levin is Professor in the Faculty of Education at The University of Manitoba. On Dec 6, 2004, he becomes Deputy Minister of Education for the Province of Ontario, a position he will hold while on a leave of absence from a new academic position in the Department of Theory and Policy Studies at OISE/University of Toronto.