Across the country a single idea has become the new education reform: "accountability." Politicians are for it, superintendents and school leaders are doing it, and parents and concerned community members say that more of it will improve our schools. Others are fighting accountability, calling it a quagmire that will ultimately breed cynicism and divisiveness within an already fractured institution.
"Accountability" might be the most overused sound bite in education today. Why? Because it taps into something that people want. Accountability suggests a responsiveness that people do not regularly experience in their interactions within most large institutions. Parents, the public, and even employees want quality service; they want our attention to their needs. When concerns are raised, people want constructive responses, and, when responses are lacking, they want access to decision makers able to address their concerns.
To policymakers, analysts, and administrators, the idea of accountability has become synonymous with "accountability systems." School districts and even some states are developing much-needed measurement systems to manage student progress toward identified goals. As a profession, education has focused for too long on soft, unmeasurable goals, and we lag far behind other industries in the use of even the most basic technology to measure and thus manage our performance.
However, in our rush to develop these accountability systems, we might be forgetting the concerns that matter most to parents and the public. Certainly, more effective management systems are needed to foster accountability, but it will take more than data and technology to reach this goal.
Accountability is ultimately a value. It is developed through relationships. It must be a motivating force that guides daily practice within an organization. Most people want to find passion in their work and to be a member of a winning team. And most people want to live in communities that boast great schools.
To succeed, then, the accountability movement must engage the passions that inspire. The words and actions of key leaders within the education system—including principals, teacher mentors, and department heads, as well as central office administrators and elected officials—will set the example of what accountability truly means in schools.
Support Is Essential
Accountability requires clear, measurable goals. And it requires that information systems deliver performance information to decision makers at the local level. Once these pieces are in place, a clear picture of progress is available. At this point, something needs to happen—some consequence or intervention. That something is the formal part of accountability.
As new systems are introduced, support must be a common theme. If the data become the central character—not the employees and their concerns—then employees will view the new data systems as a threat, even when they are succeeding.
Consider the following stories. A principal congratulates her staff for achieving a 2 percent gain on test scores. She talks about the number as a reflection of their success and congratulates them for earning a modest monetary reward for the increase. This pep talk takes place in an urban high school where many bathrooms are unusable, the teachers feel unsupported, and cynicism is at an all-time high. In response to the principal's announcement, one teacher quips, "Hey, if we just tell all the students to check 'c' for every test question, the law of averages predicts we'll get the reward next year, too." Another asks about the margin of error on the test, effectively negating any assertion of progress.
Contrast this with another story from a principal who took over a low-performing school. As she speaks with an outside group that is eager to learn more about the school's dramatic turnaround in a year's time, she is asked, "What did you do first—did you fire any teachers?" She told the surprised group that every employee from that low-performing school is still on staff, including teachers who were so burned out and bitter that they were considered beyond reach. She explained that her first task was to find out why each of them initially wanted to be a teacher—to discover their passions. Then she linked the data to the staff's visions of how the school could improve.
The difference in these stories is that the first principal had no connection to the experiences and concerns of her staff, whereas the second recognized her employees as human beings. She trusted their commitment to their work and afforded them dignity, even though they were cast as the worst performing team in the organization. She recognized that change is threatening, and she supported her employees. She did not excuse them from the hard work ahead; she engaged them in it. Marked increases in that school's performance after the first year helped the staff believe in themselves again.
Political consultants might counsel that the public wants to hear only tough talk about accountability—that any discussions of support and training are softhearted and won't sell. But most voters are also employees and recognize the need to treat employees with dignity and to provide them with the support and training necessary for their success.
A survey of parents within the Los Angeles Unified School District confirms this belief. The group of parents who conducted the survey and presented its results made it clear that parents wanted "the dance of the lemons" to end. But, when asked to rate the strategies that would do the most to improve accountability, respondents rated supportive strategies, such as more professional development and incentives to attract quality employees, as highly as they rated punitive strategies, such as easier dismissal of employees and reorganization of poorly performing schools.
Telling the Story
Within the school districts that are considered leaders in accountability, many common management systems are evident, including measurement systems, streamlined planning proesses, clearly articulated consequences, and interventions to address areas of weak performance. But listen carefully, and you will hear something more. In those organizations that have most successfully implemented accountability systems, employees also share a common story about why change was necessary and how it is being accomplished.
Stories play a central role in the creation of institutional values. A good story touches our passions; it moves us in some way. We fear the antagonists and cheer for the heroes who consistently outwit them with superior performance. A good story helps us feel connected to forces larger than ourselves. We forget our concerns and enjoy the tension in the drama. Employees consistently repeat a story well told throughout an organization, and the story becomes the badge of honor that helps them feel that they are part of a winning team.
Smart leaders understand that most people are motivated by stories and thus create stories about the need for change. Change requires a crisis and an antagonist. Leaders identify the force that most threatens an organization. The villain does not have to be a person or another institution. It can be an intangible, such as vouchers or changes in world economy. But it must somehow be a meaningful threat to the things about which employees care most.
The employees are the heroes in the saga. The case for change then becomes a story about how the employees will outsmart the villain through their cunning and skill. As the organization makes progress, the story changes, and the leader reminds everyone of past victories when introducing the next challenge.
Most often, great leaders create such stories intuitively. But anyone can develop this skill. A principal or superintendent might reflect on the way he or she motivates staff. Is the only motivation the data? If so, the story might not be one that engages the passions that fuel change. Is the only villain the public's dissatisfaction? If so, a key ally has just been cast in the villain's role.
We Are They
Listening carefully to the stories that people tell can provide an important gauge of the health of an accountability system. If employees or policymakers are casting their colleagues in the villain's role, then real accountability does not exist.
Similarly, watch the use of the words we and they. If everyone outside an office or unit is a they, then a spirit of cooperation is missing. If central office and school employees refer to one another as they, then everyone is not playing on the same team.
Often, a principal or a division manager will attempt to boost his or her own reputation by creating a saga of conflict with other offices or units. A cagey principal might convince the teachers and the parents within his or her school that all of central office is against them, but that he or she will protect them—fight for them. Stories such as these hurt the organization and do little to further the actual performance of those schools. In fact, they may create self-fulfilling prophecies. People know when they have been made scapegoats and usually have little interest in helping those who are ruining their reputations. It's no surprise that managers who engage in such tactics find little support from their colleagues in other units. They become the persecuted characters they created!
Fortunately, these tactics often backfire in the long run. Just as it is hard to be a great quarterback on a poorly performing team, it is hard for individuals to be seen as top performers when everyone around them is portrayed as incompetent. Soon, people ask the obvious question: If you're so great, why are you associating with people who you think are inept?
If an organization conducts an annual attitude survey, it can detect areas where these tactics are in play. If survey responses show consistently high marks for the head of a division, but show that the employees within that division have a poor opinion of most other units within the organization, then the survey is not likely a measure of performance. It measures a story created by the division head. With a little careful listening, the behavior can be confronted. Through a little coaching, a leader can make the skill of weaving tales serve the institution.
Not a Blame Game
The current political climate creates enormous pressure for politicians and school leaders to define accountability in its most derogatory sense by laying blame and by taking quick, strident, and highly public actions. Such actions are perhaps a tempting catharsis. But, although strong changes are often needed within the organization, lasting accountability cannot be achieved from the bully pulpit.
Improving performance and responsiveness within an organization requires cooperation and problem solving. The first step in solving problems is identifying them. When the central concern is finding individuals to blame, no one will bring problems forward, making it all but impossible to find constructive solutions to even the most basic issues.
When things go wrong, the organization has opportunities to make improvements. Yet, in a blame-oriented environment, employees who feel threatened expend inordinate energy assigning or deflecting blame. There is no real incentive to solve the problems.
Leaders and managers can do a great deal to set the tone in the way prolems are addressed. Is the first instinct to blame, or is it to evaluate? What happened? How can we fix it? and How do we prevent this the next time? are all appropriate questions. The quetion, Whose fault is this? usually produces few constructive results.
Of course, there are instances in which persistent negative attitudes can affect an entire school or, worse, in which belligerent employees undermine the performance of a colleague or an entire team. When this occurs, strong action is needed to let the offending individual know that such behavior is not acceptable. But, even in these instances, privacy is in order. Asking an employee to stay a few extra minutes for a private conversation is a sufficiently public signal that the person is being dealt with appropriately.
Publicly blaming or shaming people gains little. All employees deserve a measure of dignity in their work. Treating an errant individual with visible respect helps everyone relax and focus on the work.
To appear tough and effective, elected officials can be tempted to berate employees publicly. Such tactics eventually backfire on those who use them. Those policymakers who bully employees soon learn that few in the organization are eager to help them help their constituents. More important, it's hard for anyone—particularly an elected official—to maintain an effective image when he or she belittles everyone else on the same team.
Everyone Is Responsible
Who is responsible for accountability? If it's the guy in the corner office, then the organization has a long way to go to reach its goals. Accountability cannot be managed like a program by a single office or attended to on a periodic basis. Everyone must feel some responsibility for improving accountability within the organization.
For example, a single person can be responsible for a particular management system—such as human resources. That person might be assigned to rethink how hiring, compensation, and employee-review practices support accountability throughout the organization. Similarly, a person or office can be assigned to manage an event, such as the release of student test scores. In fact, both initiatives contribute to improved accountability. But, if those individuals are seen as solely responsible for accountability throughout the organization, then accountability has ceased to be an organization-wide value. It has instead become a program.
This concept might seem counter-intuitive to the student of management who has been trained to think about accountability in terms of highly specified objectives and measurable outcomes. Objectives and outcomes are still needed. But if accountability is to be an organization-wide value, then every employee must be able to define his or her own contribution to improved accountability in tangible ways.
More Than the Sum of Its Parts
In essence, accountability means re-inventing the way we do our business. It means reexamining what we value, then consciously cultivating those values.
Developing data systems and instituting formal rewards and incentives are necessary parts of this process, but are certainly not sufficient. Equally important is the skill with which leaders link data to a bigger story. Although formal incentives and consequences are necessary, informal recognition and personal disappointment do the most to reinforce employee behaiors. And, although strong symbols of change are necessary, support for and daily insistence on excellence in all tasks gently prod the organization along a path of improved performance.
Will this movement toward greater accountability help improve student achievement, or will it, as cynics predict, further politicize the institution? As in every other reform, leadership will be the deciding factor. If accountability is as much a culture as a system, then the good news is that "process" is what we educators do best. We know how to support people and how to teach people to change. That has been the essence of our "business" and should be a centerpiece within this new reform.
