This document has been formatted for printing from your browser from the Web site of the Illinois Association of School Boards.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE -- This document is © copyrighted by the Illinois Association of School Boards. IASB hereby grants to school districts and other Internet users the right to download, print and reproduce this document provided that (a) the Illinois Association of School Boards is noted as publisher and copyright holder of the document and (b) any reproductions of this document are disseminated without charge and not used for any commercial purpose.

Illinois School Board Journal
September/October 2006

Key to accountability:
Good decisions must marry data, research

by Sandra G. Watkins and Donna S. McCaw

Sandra G. Watkins is an assistant professor and Donna S. McCaw is an associate professor, both in educational leadership at Western Illinois University in Macomb.

The school board members sat puzzled. It was late on a Monday evening and members of both the board and the audience (parents, community members, local cable television and newspaper reporters) were tired. This was the annual informational meeting on the district's test scores. Trend data showed that student achievement scores were on the decline. Board members were faced with two questions: How does the district improve student test scores? What is their role in doing so?

Thomas, the president of the board, was thinking out loud when he said, "This is a good school district. We are dedicated school board members, have competent school employees, and we provide many resources to the schools and the district. Why are we not making progress?"

Jill, with 24 years of school board experience, looked at the graphs. "Why are we losing students in the 'exceeds' category from the third grade to fifth grade to eighth grade?" she asked, reiterating that school board members were providing a good sum of money for professional development, before and after school programs, summer school and smaller class sizes. "Why are these things not working?"

The questions these board members pose are important as school boards face increasing pressure to make good decisions around improving student achievement. While the scenario here is a compilation of several experiences by the authors, it is not without merit and certainly reflects the shift in both roles and thought processes.

Prior to the accountability era, too many board members were passive about their role or engaged in processes that were counter-productive to student achievement. The accountability era mandates changes that are often uncomfortable but vital to the maintenance of the local governance of schools and improving student achievement.

So what should board members, or could board members, do when these questions surface in the district? In Leadership and the New Science, writer and management consultant Margaret Wheatley said, "Information informs us and forms us." Thus, the progressive district moves toward research-based decision-making, shared and open discussions, a viewpoint that the leadership team includes the board and the administrators working together, and a clear focus on what's best for the students not the adults.

Although the solutions are complex and complicated, uncomfortable and sometimes not clearly defined, solutions do exist. Solutions may come from many different sources of data, not just those mentioned as helpful to board members and administrators in the district profiled here. Let's look in as this compiled fictitious district continues to grapple with these new models of governance …

The superintendent asked members of the administrative team to share their thoughts on the issue of continued declining scores. The team was armed with demographic data showing the increased number of low-income families as well as an increasing number of minority non-English speaking families. Furthermore, they informed the board members and audience that it was difficult to get students to attend before/after school programs and summer school.

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink," shared the principal of the high school.

The elementary principal felt a decline in family structure and the multiple challenges facing children today made teaching them not only difficult, but in some cases almost impossible.

The board thanked them for their input but acknowledged that the information didn't help them in knowing what to do next. The administrative team said they would study the data and return next month with ideas.

At this point Jack, a board member and local attorney who had sat quietly during the entire evening's meeting, asked two questions: "Do we have any other data to show that students are learning in this district? Do we have any research or accountability reports on the programs that we are currently funding, to show that they aren't part of the problem?"

"It would seem to me," he said, "that we need to focus on what we can control and not frame the future of this district and community around variables for which we can do very little. The students that we have are the students we have — period. Are there not other districts with similar demographics that have better scores than ours? What are they doing that is different and effective that we aren't doing? For example, three years ago we authorized the allocation of $37,000 for an after school program. Has this program been effective?

"The only time that we hear about programs is when they are hiring someone, firing someone or needing money. Is that the extent of our legal and ethical responsibility? It would seem that things are loose and because of that we are losing kids.

"I would like to see more than just a plan. We already have a district improvement plan. We have had one for the last 10 years and yet our scores continue to drop. Am I the only one who questions the plan, the process and their relationship to the outcomes?"

Superintendent Smith thanked everyone for their input and recommended that a work session be scheduled for the board and the administrative team.

"In the past," he said, "I have viewed the board as somewhat distant from the operations of the district. In all honesty, I thought my job was to keep you happy and at arm's distance. I have been reading about some interesting paradigm shifts around school leadership whereby it is less about me and more about 'us' — a leadership team of 15, comprised of seven board members and eight administrators.

"With the number of needs and issues that we face, we need to use all of talents and ideas possible. I would like to suggest a work session focused on establishing a collaborative team, where questions are welcomed and open dialogue is the mainstay of the process, and where our data is scrutinized. According to the 2000 research by Gemberling, Smith and Villani, we need to make decisions based on data and effective research. I would also like to suggest that we identify schools, if there are any, like ours that are doing a better job with our demographics and invite them to a work session to share what they have learned."

Two weeks later, on a rainy Saturday morning, 35 people wandered into the board room for the first working session focused on analyzing district and school achievement data. People were surprised to see laptop computers scattered around the room. The superintendent had them access the public Web sites for the Illinois Interactive Report Card and Just 4 Kids, examining data from many different angles.

Illinois Standards Achievement Test and Prairie State Achievement Exam trend data were analyzed for ethnicity, socio-economic status, grade level, gender and learning standards. Data-focused questions were written on chart paper around the room. The high school principal showed comparison data from the Just 4 Kids Web site. These data sparked new discussions at each table.

Jill was surprised when her table realized that the district had lost a significant number of boys in the "exceeds" category between third and fifth grade. A parent voiced surprise when her table recognized the pattern of decreasing scores for low-income (SES) males.

The question was voiced: Does the data indicate a district-level issue around boys/males? Other voices raised similar questions around reported data on literacy, giftedness and special programming. When the chart papers were full of questions and observations, the board president asked the group what they perceived as the next step.

"We need to know what the research says works for our kids," said Jack, the attorney/board member. "I would like to have some external assistance to answer some of these questions and push us toward excellence."

For the second work session, the superintendent found a university team to work with the group. The university team had examined the first working session's questions and the district data. They shared the research and asked numerous accountability questions:

• What are the vision and the mission of this district?
• What are the core values from which you lead?
• Where exactly do you want to be in three, five and seven years?
• What are the strengths of your communities and schools?

The room filled with an energized buzz as participants grappled with answering these questions. After sharing, those present realized that additional work was needed to create a unified voice on these answers.

After a short break, the university team began to focus on the chart paper questions, using research to answer those questions. It was noted that the previous year the board and superintendent eliminated all media specialists, replacing them with paraprofessionals. The consultants then asked the board and the superintendent what data and research were examined prior to making that decision.

Heads turned as each one looked to the other for the answer to the question. "None," was the quiet answer from the superintendent. "We needed to make some budget cuts, and they seemed the most expendable."

Then the consultants had the work session participants read an executive summary of a 2005 Lance, Rodney and Hamilton-Pennell study in Illinois. These data reported that schools with better-staffed libraries increased their writing by 17.3 percent at the elementary level, 18.4 percent in middle school and 4.6 percent in high school. Schools with more weekly hours of librarian staffing increased elementary writing scores by 8.7 percent and high school writing scores 4.1 percent. When the library media specialist spent time on these activities, ACT scores increased between 2.5 and 4.1 percent.

The research also showed that when a library media specialist spends more time identifying materials for teachers in elementary and middle schools, the school has higher achievement scores. Achievement in reading increased 7.6 percent at the elementary level and 6.6 percent in middle school. Achievement in writing increased 9.5 percent and 13.0 percent at those levels, respectively.

It was also noted that the budget for purchasing new books, magazines, journals and newspapers had been decreased every year for the past six years. Yet the Lance report found the size of a school's library collection makes a difference in school achievement.

• Schools with larger print volumes increased their scores in writing by 8.1 percent at elementary schools, 13.8 percent at middle schools and 3.6 percent at high schools.
• Schools with larger periodical collections increased their scores in writing by 6.8 percent, 10.7 percent and 5.7 percent at the same levels, respectively.

The consultants went on to ask 20 additional questions related to decisions that the board had made over the past six years. The superintendent shared an observation made at his table (consisting of two board members, two parents and another administrator) that it was a new day in school governance.

"Just as the business world is more accountable and doing business differently — so we in public school leadership must also do different things differently," said the superintendent. "We must rely on the marriage between our data and research to make decisions that focus on what's best for our children in our communities.

"I have a renewed commitment to doing what is best for children," he added. "It is truly energizing to realize that the 'we' includes the board, administration and community. These issues are not solely my responsibility to fix but are our responsibilities to address."

A 21-year-old board member, Julie, excitedly noted that being part of a team was energizing. The data, the research and the collaboration gave her hope for a better community and a better district.

"I love that we can agree to disagree," she said, "that we are basing decisions on real information not 'gut feelings' or one person's agenda for improvement. When we had one person present the fix, everyone suffered — but mostly our children. I never realized that all of these research studies existed and that all of these rich data pieces were so easily available to us."

Additional issues were discussed for which the group asked for research and data. Another working session was planned. The district was beginning to make available data work toward a goal of improved student achievement.

A pre-conference session at the 2006 IASB/IASA/IASBO conference in Chicago, "The Keys to Accountability or Asking the Right Questions," will focus on the role and responsibilities of school board members and administrative staff in marrying data and research for relevant decision-making. Results and accountability are key responsibilities for 21st century school boards and administrators.

K.W. Gemberling, C. W. Smith and J.S. Villani, The Key Work of School Boards Guidebook, The National School Boards Association, Alexandria, Virginia, 2000

K.C. Lance, M.J. Rodney and C. Hamilton-Pennell, Powerful Libraries Make Powerful Learners: The Illinois Study, Illinois School Library Media Association, Canton, Illinois, 2005

Margaret Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science: Learning about Organizations from an Orderly Universe, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, California, 1992.