Accountability at a crossroads: the nation needs school leaders who will make accountability decisions that are grounded in research, not popularity

Leadership, Nov-Dec, 2004 by Douglas B. Reeves

Educational leaders are an angry lot in the closing days of 2004. They are angry with federal and state regulators for the use of accountability as a blunt instrument of reform.

They are angry with legislators for limiting funding at the same time that they increased demands for services.

Although they are frequently too diplomatic to say it publicly, they are angry with parents and local board members for simultaneously demanding higher levels of performance from students all the while they demand the perpetuation of good grades for substandard work.

They are angry with students, whose cavalier attitude toward testing--"Does it count?"--can ruin the career of a dedicated administrator. they are angry with at least a few teachers and their union representatives who insist that with seniority comes the prerogative to avoid students who need them most.

And they are angry at themselves for occasionally buying the fantasies that achievement could be purchased in a box and that a brand name would be a substitute for extraordinarily difficult changes. They are angry that change is so clearly necessary but universally resisted. And they are really, really angry that even when they achieve success, measured by improvements in student achievement and equity, they are as likely to receive opprobrium as accolades.

These angry leaders are my friends and colleagues. I wish that I could give them what their private-sector counterparts receive. After all, what do we call people who manage multi-million dollar budgets, hundreds of staff members, thousands of stakeholders, and 24/7 job responsibilities? In the private sector, we call them chief executive officers with stock options and golden parachutes. In education, we call them administrators who are as likely to be evaluated based on the ambiguities of politics as they are on the effectiveness with which they improve student achievement (Reeves, 2004a).

Although I cannot offer the stock options, winter retreat on an island paradise or a golden parachute, I can offer a practical approach to four critical decisions that every school, district and state administrator must face. We cannot avoid a confrontation with these decisions, but can only choose whether our decisions will be grounded in research or will be the subject of one more fact-free debate in educational policy.

Decision #1: Mandates or menus?

There are essentially three types of decisions made in every school. "Level 1" decisions are within the discretion of every teacher. While the state standards govern what is taught, the selection of scenarios, along with decisions on grouping, grading, testing, rewarding, engaging and sanctioning students, are among the many decisions left to teachers.

"Level 2" decisions are collaborative, with teachers providing extensive input while the leader must make a final decision. Examples include the use of "power standards" (Ainsworth, 2003) and the selection of common assessments (Reeves, 2004b).

"Level 3" decisions are top-down--the leader makes the decision without any teacher discretion or collaboration. These decisions typically involve matters of safety, value or principle. After all, we do not vote on fire drills, cafeteria hygiene or fundamental principles. We do not vote on equity. We do not vote on fairness. We do not make a collaborative decision about whether accuracy in grading or compliance with legislative requirements is a good idea. We just do it.

The leadership question is this: At which level are educational decisions typically made? The common presumption is that the vast majority of decisions are top-down, the result of administrative fiat. The common complaint is that, as a result of standards and accountability, teachers are no longer permitted to have discretion or freedom (Ohanian, 1999; Kohn, 1999).

Common complaints are, however, commonly inaccurate. In the past year, I have conducted a simple experiment in which I asked teachers and school leaders across the country to hypothesize how educational leadership decisions are made. They presumed that about 75 percent of decisions were the result of a topdown decision.

Then I give the same group of teachers and leaders the opportunity to list as many decisions as they can within a fixed increment of time. They list every level 1 decision of teacher discretion, then with the same time constraint list all the level 2 and level 3 decisions they can identify. The results are strikingly different from the stereotype.

While the group presumed that 75 percent of decisions are level 3--"my way or the highway"--dictatorial decisions of school leaders, the reality is quite different, with only 20 percent of real decisions at that level.

I have repeated this experiment with many groups, including those consisting only of teachers, only of administrators, and a mixed group. While the percentages vary slightly from one group to another, the quantitative sequence never changes. In every case--bar none--the group identifies the majority or plurality of the decisions in their school as level 1--teacher discretion--not level 3--administrative direction. The least frequent decision is level 3--typically about 20 percent.