The Roots and Current State of School Accountability Reporting

ISSUE 58 | JULY 11, 2003

[This free e-mail newsletter about school information, accountability and the public is provided by School Wise Press. To add a colleague's name to the distribution, please send us their names and e-mail addresses to: stever@schoolwisepress.com. If you'd rather not receive this, simply notify us by phone at (800) 247-8443, or by e-mail, including the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line of your message.]

Just 15 years ago, Proposition 98, the constitutional amendment that redefined school funding also gave birth to school accountability reporting. On the occasion of both these anniversaries, it is time to ask how district leadership is doing in the stand-and-deliver department.

In this Owl's opinion, no more than ten to twenty percent of district leaders publish reasonably readable annual accountability reports. Unfortunately, the rest suffer one of three troublesome fates: the church newsletter, the engineering report, and the Iraqi weapons disclosure.

THE CHURCH NEWSLETTER

The church newsletter versions, often decorated with clip art, are sprinkled with evasive platitudes that are not backed up with data. Broad general statements such as "We believe all children can learn" or "Our school is safe and drug-free" sound hollow and preachy without further explanation or data to back them up. When a principal declares her high school to be "drug-free" while failing to disclose the three-year history of drug and alcohol busts that sit in the public record, a skeptical public will sense a deliberate evasion.

THE ENGINEERING REPORT

The engineering variety of accountability reports contain great attention to detail, but pay no attention to the big picture. Like an exercise of pseudo-democracy, the engineer's approach renders all detail equally important. But when everything is equally important, nothing really matters. The engineer renders data in meaningless units of precision (At our school, 42.73% of all students are on free or reduced-price lunch.) The real story is the limited meaning of the data itself.

Too many administrators have long since forgotten that the free and reduced-price lunch measure is (1) self-reported by parents, (2) claimed far less frequently by high school students, and (3) a threshold entitlement available to any student in a family of four that earns less than $33,226 (185 percent of the federal poverty standard). It is a poor and imprecise proxy for poverty, but it is the only one available.

In the engineering report, the real meat of an accountability disclosure is often missing, namely, data that compares the school to others in the county and state. Often, the information that is most important to parents (such as school safety) is left out of the report entirely. Even worse, many engineering-style accountability reports place the facts that matter least to parents (salaries or student ethnicity) on the first page.

THE IRAQI WEAPONS DISCLOSURE

These reports contain a surplus of data and a shortage of meaning. Some districts reports run over 30 pages and are filled with cascading tables. Like the 12,000-page Iraqi weapons disclosure, the sheer volume of data masks the key vital signs.

For example, take a look at the 2,880 data points that emerge when one reports disaggregated CST results for a single elementary school:

4 grade levels x 2 curricular areas x 5 proficiency bands x 12 cohorts
x 3 years x 2 benchmark comparisons (local and state)

When you add this volume of data to the reporting on the CAT-6 as well (three curricular areas rather than two), you have an additional 4,320 data points. It is easy to fall into the over-disclosure trap, especially if you are one who believes in following the letter of the law. But this type of over-reporting without drawing conclusions does not meet the letter or spirit of accountability reporting — and it will only muddle the truth for your public.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Be selective. William James provides us with some useful advice: "The art of being wise is the art of knowing what to overlook." Not all facts hold meaning. Some facts aren't worth reporting. You can, indeed, report less and serve your public better.

Summarize. Most of your public wants your summary conclusions, not play-by-play recounting of events.

Listen to your public. Your accountability reports are for your public. You serve them best when you know what they want. Show them your annual accountability reports and ask them what they think. You are sure to learn something useful.

Be honest. Don't turn your accountability reports into a shield. Rather, makethem a candid and clear reporting of results to the public you serve. You'll be building bridges of trust. And your public will reward you with praise, rising enrollments, and bond measures that pass with ease.

REFERENCES

The editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle champions the Brown Act and marks its fiftieth anniversary.

Governor Davis is attempting to water down the Brown Act by eliminating a requirement for posting agendas 72 hours in advance of meetings.

The California First Amendment Coalition tracks legislation and advocates for open government. Read a San Francisco Chronicle article about them, too.

Read The Brown Act, the California Public Records Act, and other key laws.

If passed, this amendment to the California Constitution would establish a citizens fundamental right to open government.

OWL ARCHIVE | BACK TO NEWSLETTER REGISTRATION PAGE