(49 Questions to Ask Your Board)
The board has a responsibility to expect clear evidence that implementation has been carried out. This evidence should be provided not only for the district as a whole, but also for each individual school. The type of evidence that will be gathered should be determined and agreed on before the policy is implemented. That way, the expectations are clear up front, and the staff isn’t being asked to provide confirming data after the fact.
― NSBA1
The first step in a district accountability system is to identify and communicate criteria that will be used to monitor district performance and determine district success.
Scenario: The superintendent concluded the annual report of student test score results with a statement of how well the district was doing in comparison with the state as a whole. Eric, our newest board member, spoke, “I’ve read that poverty is a huge factor impacting the ability of schools to influence student learning. How did our students do compared to districts with similar free-and-reduced-price-meal percentages?” “I’ll have to ask staff to get that information for you,” said the superintendent. After the meeting, Eric asked, “Don’t we ask for these kinds of comparisons as a routine?” Ann, the board chair, responded that the board has not decided what comparable data should be presented. “That’s been left to the superintendent’s discretion based on her educational expertise. We aren’t education professionals.”
By leaving it to the superintendent to decide what should be expected and therefore what is to be reported, this board allows its superintendent to pick and choose data by which she will be judged. A self-interested response to this situation enables the superintendent to select data that puts the most positive face on district performance. This is a kind of role reversal (who’s really the boss?) and conflict of interest that the board should scrupulously avoid.
It is the board’s responsibility to decide what success looks like. Certainly, the superintendent, as an education professional, can advise the board on what kind of evidence and specific criteria makes the most sense based on available research, but a careful definition of evidence and criteria should be understood by all, well before data is gathered and results become known, or the temptation will be strong to selectively portray the most favorable data.
One way that organizations establish quality performance standards is through benchmarking. Benchmarking involves finding and analyzing “best practices” with respect to standards and then developing standards that meet or exceed those benchmarks… [identifying districts that have established standards and] achieved outstanding results. This “exemplary” work becomes the starting point for the standards-setting process…Benchmarking helps the board by giving it a base for action and avoids reinventing the proverbial wheel.
― NSBA1
Sources of evidence for a board’s definition of district success will likely include:
- A board-adopted vision of student outcomes that are desired by the community
- Community values that are embedded in policy that guides district performance
Among the various failures of school reform over the years, one reason is the tendency of policymakers to be satisfied with the enthusiasm generated by the launch of a new strategy rather than to demand data showing results achieved by the innovation over time.
Institutional incentives encourage urban policymakers to concentrate on proposing change, rather than on improving teaching and learning. Reform is not necessarily about producing results, because the visible or verbal adoption of innovations may suffice to meet the needs of the policymakers. In fact, the demands of political leadership and professional behavior generally make it more politically profitable to innovate without risking the costs of real change.
― Frederick Hess2
Research into the many innovative initiatives of school reform that have been supported by grants from the US Department of Education reported in 2024 that fewer than 30 percent of such initiatives provided any significant benefit to student learning.3
The effective board defines district success in terms of student learning outcomes. It reviews comparable district performance measures that can be used to judge district (hence superintendent) performance in terms of reasonable progress toward desirable student outcomes. The board sets criteria in writing by which it will judge progress. Informed by these performance criteria, the board directs that staff reports and other externally obtained evidence will include data that can be compared with previously established goals and values. It can discuss trends in data and student test scores, and their connection with board-determined criteria for success. The board requires multi-year analysis of trends.
NOTE: Please feel free to comment. The opinions expressed in these blog entries are informed by references cited herein, and the experiences of the author. Your comments are welcome additions to the conversation.
ALSO: Please feel free to register in order to receive future posts like this one as soon as they are published.
Excerpt from:
- A Framework for School Governance (2017), Rick Maloney
Additional References:
- 1The Key Work of School Boards (2009) Katherine Gemberling et al
- 2Spinning Wheels: The Politics of Urban School Reform (1999) Frederick Hess
- 3https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/2024002/pdf/2024002r.pdf, retrieved May 2024
Next: Question #40 Does Your Board Monitor District Performance?
Remember the days of data driven decision-making? It currently resides on the ash heap of failed educational initiatives! No Child Left Behind is now no administrator without a salary increases! Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people! (HL Mencken)! Just keep the children happy! Give them high grades for attendance and everything will be fine and the superintendent will get her bonus!