Accountability:
The Ten Accounts of Charter School Leaders
by
Sarah B. Cunningham

The air is teeming with calls for accountability and assessment. We hear these words again and again, with reference to NCLB, with reference to school performance, with reference to state testing standards, and with reference to teacher quality. They function as quick triggers to alert the listener that the speaker is in fact up-to-date, using the currently respected jargon. What, however, does a commitment to accountability and assessment actually mean?

“Account” derives from the Latin “computus,” referring to calculating and reckoning. To account for something may mean to calculate a balance, to estimate, to narrate, or even to think. Accountability can refer to one’s ability to present descriptive reports or narratives of one’s actions. Often, this term implies responsibility. When we talk about education and accountability, we are often implying that parties involved take on some kind of responsibility. Thus, while accountability may refer to the calculating task of surveying student performance, it may also refer to one’s ability to respond, be responsible and responsive to the existing school conditions.

When individuals and organizations call for accountability,
are they calling for documentation,
report and calculations;
for responsibility;
or both?

If we speak about accountability as one’s necessity to be responsible, we are also speaking about the imperative to answer a demand. This might be a demand from our internal, personal and ethical standards or from external expectations coming from a host of parties: students, parents, legislators, unions, districts, authorizers, state departments of education, or the federal government and NCLB. If each party with educational clout has different vested interests, they will naturally ask schools (and school leaders) to be responsible in a myriad of ways. For example, the teacher union asks school leaders to respond to teacher needs. The state asks school leaders to respond to legislator expectations and standards. The parents require immediate attention to pressing needs. The federal government now requires a new host of demands. Each of these demands is uniquely sophisticated. For example, does our accountability to the student include the moral imperative to reduce the achievement gap? Does this drive to an equal right to education reflect another account, an account that requires educational leaders to define and respond to social injustice? Either way, to be “responsible” school leaders must be able to creatively draw together a number of external demands, in order to produce a harmonious and successful learning environment. These external demands must harmonize with the internal expectations developed by the faculty and in-house administrators. No problem – especially for charter school leaders who sometimes work in districts, states and union communities at odds with their mission.

In a sense, school leaders have at least nine accounts to balance (including one’s own conscience.) These accounts include a spectrum of emotional debts or credits. How much do we risk, when we (as we must) determine the group to which are primarily responsible, ranking the others as second, third fourth and so on? This is the unenviable situation of our current system. As University of Washington researchers write, “building these external accountability relationships and reconciling the needs of different parties, is a major challenge that virtually all charter schools struggle to meet.”

Consider, however, that “accountability” refers less to the responsibility of the school to the public but rather refers to the school’s ability to make reports and calculations regarding the data presented by student performance and teacher input. Thus, school leaders would be “accountable” to one over-riding factor: the imperative to document and evaluate performance of students, teachers and staff. While this accountability does not respond to one particular party, it reflects one’s ethical obligation to reflect upon and improve school culture. Implicitly, this assumes that such reports would be integrated into school improvement in order to create a robust educational experience for all students. Further, such calculation might free us from our attempt to negotiate and balance the nine accounts and all their subjective baggage.

“Accountability” as reportage appears to provide a much simple, direct, and less convoluted goal than the kind of accountability related to our nine responsibilities. Indeed, NAEP tests, state tests, IOWA tests, and NWEA tests (MAP) provide such tools. Thus, while accountability refers to the general commitment to data collection, assessment refers to the specific tools that provide the foundation for accountability. These tools, moreover, foster responsibility by allowing us to be able to provide concrete, scientific answers to the public and their many interests in our educational programs. Further, they should provide us with objective information regarding the effectiveness of our programs.

What is the reality? Can testing free us of the subjective value inherent in accountability-as-responsibility? Unfortunately, while testing in itself can be fundamental to improving a school’s success, too many of our assessment tools are also linked to politics. In order to present a clear picture of a school, school leaders must hire outside experts to provide objective assessments, scientific data and clear, un-politicized interpretations. Unfortunately, as the recent NAEP reports on charter school performance demonstrate, the interpretation of data may have a profound impact on how we come to regard and use that data. Thus, while tests may be used fairly and successfully, they may also be simplified, and thereby distorted, in order to bolster the agenda of certain interests vying for that primary spot on the school leader’s list of accounts. Indeed, managing school testing, interpreting data and communicating conclusions could provide a tenth account for school leaders to manage.

This tenth account has become extremely important. We can allow the demands of our other accounts to determine how we manage our tenth account. Or, we could take charge of testing, evaluation, assessment and analysis. As is happening in a number of charter schools, we can exploit the best aspects of available assessment tools. We can also create our own tools. Princeton Charter School, a school with a waiting list of 300 for 40 spots, executes an annual survey that responds to their “parent account.” A parent survey evaluates family satisfaction with all aspects of the school. Results from this survey are tallied and the administration responds in writing to parent concerns and assessments. In response, PCS provides an account of how they will respond to problem areas. By creating additional assessments, PCS has reinforced their responsibility to their “parent account” while also collecting data to improve the school and develop their “tenth account.” No one has demanded PCS to draw up such surveys or create comprehensive responses. However, PCS values this tenth account and regularly maintains and develops feedback mechanisms to improve their program.