Accountability Nudges Districts into Changes in Culture

Abstract

We may never be able to show statistically the school district's contribution to student achievement, but we know the district plays a key role in improving teaching and learning. Without adequate district support, changes that focus solely on the school, like comprehensive school reform programs or restructuring efforts, often fail or only limp forward. Most districts have better links to professional networks than their schools because they have specialists to track particular specialties. So the district is in a superior position to identify useful innovations, decide which ones to ignore, and mobilize the intellectual and financial resources needed for improvement efforts. Perhaps most important, accountability pressures have been increasing in education for at least a quarter century. However, though policy makers might try to change it, the district is usually the legal point of accountability for most things in this country. Schools rarely are directly subjected to state and federal policy; the district filters those policies (Fairman and Firestone 2001). So, how districts interpret and act on accountability policy matters. Although there is more research on what promotes school effectiveness than on what makes an effective school district, work in the area is growing. In the last decade, a number of case studies of unusually high-achieving districts have yielded useful clues, as has research on specific levers through which districts can influence teaching and learning. Districts develop distinctive cultures that can affect how those levers get used. The most typical has been the loosely coupled culture in which districts have relatively little influence on practice. The rise of the accountability movement--as exemplified by No Child Left Behind (NCLB)--has brought about an accountability culture in many districts that creates greater coherence through centralized control. However, the accountability culture is not as effective as the student learning culture for promoting achievement. What takes a district from accountability to the student learning culture is a mix of board and community support and leadership from the top. DISTRICT CULTURES When people talk about cultures in education, they usually mean something like a pattern of shared assumptions that is learned by solving important problems. But school district cultures have three points in common: 1. District culture will concern at least two areas: Teaching and learning--that is, expectations for students and beliefs about what they can learn--and how people will work together. 2. Although cultures are usually defined by shared expectations, the extent of sharing may vary. Especially in schools and districts, cultural themes are unevenly represented. 3. A district's culture is located at the top, so an ongoing challenge is how to spread constructive cultures to every school. Although each district has its own culture, three are quite typical. Loosely Coupled Culture. The term, loosely coupled culture, reflects 40 years of research suggesting that most school districts have few common goals, shared beliefs, or effective levers for coordinating activity. A loosely coupled district lacks a shared vision for teaching and learning. A district might, for example, focus on improving the physical plant and the cafeteria system, rather than emphasizing student learning (Rosenholtz 1989). These districts don't attempt to send a common message to schools. Departments in the district, such as the curriculum office and the Title I office, often send divergent messages to schools. These districts often adopt and drop improvement initiatives quickly with no effort to coordinate new programs; initiatives often follow the money rather than a coherent philosophy (Spillane 1998). Loosely coupled districts fail to use the levers they have to influence instruction. They may not have a central curriculum; if they do, teachers don't feel required to follow it (Floden 1988). …