Local Accountability: Tendencies

When it comes to school accountability, several tendencies have been discovered by school and district administrators within Fleming County Schools. Each of these tendencies is deeply ingrained in the overall system and, as with any new initiative, goal, or program, they can become barriers or distractions. Local accountability introduces numerous complexities, many of which an overwhelming majority of educators have had to contend with due to the novelty of a next-generation accountability model. Existing processes such as data-driven leadership, strategic planning, continuous improvement, and transparent communication are integrated into novel approaches of accountability, both internally and externally. Nevertheless, they still encounter inherently human and organizational tendencies.

In just two short years, starting in January 2022, Fleming County Schools have taken significant strides in enhancing local accountability. While our progress is undeniable, there remains a great deal for us to explore and accomplish along our accountability journey. It's important to recognize that tendencies can manifest in any organization, often surfacing naturally, regardless of the situation or task. Innovation in any form or on any level, especially local accountability is prone to be inflected with organizational tendencies, due to the novelty of accountability at the local level, a lack of understanding of local accountability, and few tangible models to explore, touch, and model after. Novelty should ideally foster fresh perspectives and approaches, yet the prevalent tendency is to cling to what is familiar and comfortable.

At an organizational level, the tendency to commence with enthusiasm but subsequently wane or abandon innovation poses a persistent challenge that can afflict any institution, whether it's a new initiative, program, or system like local accountability. Over the past two years, Fleming County Schools have had to confront several such inclinations. Below, I outline some of the tendencies that school and district leaders have had to address. While these tendencies are common, it's important to note that each school district will grapple with its unique set of inclinations. As school and district administrators, it is essential to begin their journey by reflecting upon these common tendencies. This reflection allows them to proactively address emerging tendencies and plan accordingly. The question now becomes: What specific tendencies are associated with local accountability?

The Tendency of Complacency. It is crucial to emphasize that complacency constitutes a significant challenge that leaders of any organization must vigilantly guard against. Many organizations, even those that initially perform at high levels, have fallen victim to organizational complacency, leading to stagnation, decreased performance, or an alarming decline in overall effectiveness. Local accountability breathes new life into the concepts of being "data-driven," embracing "formative data," and fostering "data-inspired change." Local accountability encompasses much more than the mere collection and presentation of data through vibrant and informative dashboards. Next-generation accountability models necessitate the consistent and systematic utilization of formative data to facilitate transformative change for students.

There can be no room for mere routine; instead, there exists a rigorous commitment to continuous improvement and transparency that anticipates and rejects any traces of complacency. Complacency is a lurking threat that can manifest in any organization, especially in the context of new initiatives or programs. The critical task is to not only recognize and address any hint of complacency but also to ensure that those engaged in operating the local accountability system are actively involved and comprehend the significance of continuous improvement. While redundancy in processes can be beneficial, provided the process is effective, it is essential to be cautious of the concealed pitfalls that may arise from repeating the same actions without adaptation or innovation.

Throughout the local accountability journey of Fleming County Schools, administrators have observed a recurring inclination to become complacent with monthly results. It's important to note that in traditional accountability systems, data typically plays a role once or twice a year, with opportunities for data usage and continuous improvement being limited. In contrast, local accountability mandates the analysis and utilization of data to drive student-oriented changes on a monthly, quarterly, or semester-based schedule, depending on the district's calendar. In Fleming County Schools, both school and district administrators diligently engage in monthly data analysis throughout the school year, actively shaping improvements for students. Traditional accountability models often foster complacency due to the significant time lag between data availability and its utilization.

Furthermore, there is an inherent tendency in most individuals to continue doing what they are doing when things are going well. However, this inclination poses a challenge when it comes to operating local accountability systems. Local accountability relies heavily on formative data, which is intended to drive monthly changes for students. Unlike traditional accountability systems where data may take months to become available, local accountability offers real-time data aligned with the district's accountability calendar. If this data is not utilized – in other words, if schools or districts choose to rest on their laurels and do nothing to benefit students, whether it's personalizing learning interventions, addressing a decrease in stakeholder empowerment, or tackling a rise in student absences – then the data will stagnate or even decline. Local accountability systems require constant engagement from school and district administrators with the data to effect meaningful change for students.

The Tendency of Assumption. When we embarked on the journey of exploring local accountability, our team of school and district administrators honestly had no idea about what we were getting into, and even today, we would humbly consider ourselves novices in the realm of local accountability. Each day, we engage in conversations about the new insights we gain concerning accountability. It may seem improbable that our team would make assumptions about local accountability, given that none of our members had prior experience in developing or operating any type of accountability system. However, assumptions did indeed exist.

We initially assumed that local accountability primarily centered around data and dashboards. While we acknowledged the significant focus on data processes and protocols within these aspects, we soon came to realize that local accountability encompasses a far broader spectrum of elements. It involves components such as strategic planning, continuous improvement, capacity building, extensive professional development, and numerous other facets that are integral to our daily work.

It became evident to us just how tightly local accountability and continuous improvement are intertwined; one cannot effectively function without the other when the objective is to operationalize an efficient accountability system at the local level. Through a substantial amount of trial and error, we gleaned a critical lesson: to effect change for students, which is the ultimate goal of local accountability, data alone is insufficient. It must be actively analyzed and integrated into the district's continuous improvement process. Data, left untouched, serves no purpose; it must be meticulously examined and put to use to ignite transformative change within any organization.

We initially assumed that our task was merely to downsize the traditional accountability model and tailor it to the unique needs of Fleming County Schools. However, what we ultimately developed, particularly with the recent release of Version 3.0, turned out to be a radically different accountability framework. Interestingly, the state had compiled ad hoc data files that districts could access in their raw, unprocessed state, but these files were not fully formulated, combined, or filtered for accountability purposes. With each iteration of the Measures of Quality, schools and districts found themselves tasked with creating new data tools, refining data protocols, and adapting to fresh approaches in spreadsheet utilization.

The accountability team also made an interesting assumption regarding the Measures of Quality, believing it to have a static nature. Initially, we thought that the model introduced in Version 1.0 would remain consistent in subsequent iterations. However, with the launch of Version 3.0, each new release introduces fresh components, techniques, tools, and processes. We find ourselves continuously learning and adapting with each version's release, a concept we hadn't anticipated as a yearly occurrence.

I'm uncertain if annual updates are absolutely necessary, as some districts adopting a local accountability approach may opt for a model with limited yearly revisions. Nevertheless, the significance of these annual updates extends far beyond the creation of visually appealing dashboards; the updates strengthen the connection between local accountability and continuous improvement. As school and district leaders evolve and acquire new insights, the accountability system undergoes updates, ultimately resulting in positive changes for students.

The Tendency to Overlook the Power of Transparency. In 2023, there is an increasing demand from parents, guardians, and communities for enhanced accountability in their schools, coupled with a stronger desire for greater access and transparency. For decades, numerous public schools and districts have taken transparency norms for granted, assuming that the public, in general, would support government agencies, including public schools, in their discretion regarding information sharing. However, this perception shifted in 2020. Now, parents, guardians, business leaders, and the community at large seek more comprehensive insights into their schools, school districts, and school governing boards. This newfound emphasis also extends to a greater desire for understanding student readiness and insight into the curricula being employed.

The current landscape in public education, characterized by a growing demand for increased access and transparency, is an ideal backdrop for the introduction of local accountability systems. As I've emphasized in previous blog posts, there will undoubtedly be numerous schools and school districts vehemently opposing local accountability precisely because it brings them under a magnifying glass. However, those schools and districts resisting transparency and accountability will ultimately face their downfall. We must not underestimate the tendency to discount the importance of transparency and accountability in our communities today.?

Local accountability not only offers a platform for schools and school districts to enhance transparency with their stakeholders, but it also encourages a more strategic form of transparency tailored to the specific information and access identified by these stakeholders. While the degree of access and transparency may vary from district to district, there exists a fundamental level of transparency that every community expects, and schools and districts should be mindful of these expectations.

Despite Fleming County Schools being notably transparent, possibly ranking among the Top 20 most transparent districts in Kentucky, there is still room for improvement. We encounter similar challenges related to transparency, just like any other institution, as we strive to strike the delicate balance that aligns with our stakeholders' needs, effectively supports our local accountability model, and adheres to district policies and state laws. It's a demanding task, but our commitment remains steadfast: more transparency is preferable to less.

Through our extensive local accountability journey, we have gleaned the importance of maintaining ongoing dialogues with stakeholders. This practice ensures that the information disseminated and employed throughout the accountability process remains in harmony with our community's needs and values. In any effective local accountability system, accountability, transparency, and trust are intimately intertwined.

Schools and school districts must uphold their accountability based on shared expectations within the community. To instill trust in the accountability process, there must be an unwavering commitment to transparency. In essence, it's a principle of "trust but verify."

The Tendency to Accept the Status Quo. Public education in Kentucky is currently presented with a rare, once-in-a-generation opportunity to overhaul a 30-year-old accountability model that is antiquated, outdated, and increasingly perceived as lacking in public value. This model has long prioritized single-day achievement tests and single-day metrics mandated by the federal government. Unfortunately, an increasingly vanishing number of veteran educators and educational leaders remain who remember what public education was like before the emergence of standardized accountability. Most teachers, principals, researchers, and other practitioners only know public education with federal accountability requirements. As such, many embrace the status quo and accept it as something that cannot be or will not change.?

In Kentucky, 18 school districts, including Fleming County Schools, have been granted the freedom to explore next-generation accountability systems through the Local Laboratories of Learning (L3) Coalition, facilitated by the Department of Education. This presents an unprecedented opportunity to challenge the existing norms in school accountability.

Within Fleming County Schools, we are actively engaged in the process of exploring and mapping our unique path toward next-generation accountability. It's important to note that we do so without any illusions or guarantees of acceptance, adoption, or support from the Kentucky Department of Education, the Kentucky Board of Education, or the Kentucky General Assembly. While most schools and districts might hesitate to embark on such a journey without assured outcomes, Fleming County Schools forge ahead because we recognize the profound impact this effort can have on our students and teachers. We passionately believe that by charting this uncharted territory, we can pave the way for others, ensuring a brighter future for all our students. It may be wishful thinking, yet it may also hold the potential to break through this thirty-year-plus reliance on standardized testing to determine a student's ability to read, write, or perform math, as well as assess the quality of a school or school district. We will never know unless we try.?

The Tendency to Under-Simplify and Over-Complicate. With each iteration of the Measures of Quality, school and district administrators are improving their ability to simplify the accountability process. However, there is still much work to be done. Our efforts to develop local accountability have revealed just how deeply we rely on existing models of school and district accountability. Since we are familiar with nothing else, we often find ourselves attempting to recreate current accountability components under a different name or heading. We are constantly reminding ourselves that for the next generation of accountability models to be effective and student-driven, they must be "ultra-simplistic."

Achieving the right balance between simplifying the accountability model and maintaining appropriate levels of accountability is crucial. It's essential to distinguish between "simplifying" and "lowering expectations." We aim to streamline the accountability process without diminishing expectations throughout the system. We're challenging ourselves to discover improved and more efficient methods for assessing student readiness and the quality of learning across the entire school district. In Kentucky, millions of dollars are allocated to the traditional accountability model, which includes multiple components. Our objective is to establish a cost-effective local accountability system, with fewer components, yet more effective in evaluating student readiness and overall learning quality. This is a lofty objective, but one to which we are wholeheartedly committed to discovering.?

It is crucial to recognize that not all tendencies necessarily have a negative impact on local accountability. Whether one is a school or district leader, it is of paramount importance to remain cognizant of these inclinations, ensuring they do not hinder innovation, continuous improvement, progress, or overall performance. Tendencies often manifest spontaneously; however, they can be effectively managed when school and district leaders possess a full awareness of the potential underlying tendencies within themselves, their staff, and their organization. Given the novelty of local accountability, schools and district leaders are more susceptible to encountering one or more tendencies. Overreliance on past experiences with innovation frequently results in the resurgence of these tendencies.