Community organizing creates a new form of accountability

Test scores are just one tool to hold schools accountable

by Eva Gold and Elaine Simon

"Accountability" is the rallying cry these days for many concerned about improving public schools. But what are people talking about when they use that term?

Behind the idea of accountability are a few key questions. Who is supposed to make sure that student achievement improves? To whom are those people responsible? What are the consequences if students or schools succeed or fail?

As researchers who have studied community organizing groups addressing urban school reform, we have identified an approach to accountability that we call public accountability. Community organizing has developed strategies for bringing school stakeholders -- parents, teachers, students, principals, community members, district and elected officials -- together in a public dialogue where they commit to take action to improve urban schools. Because commitments are publicly made, participants can hold each other accountable.

Other accountability models

However, public accountability is not the form that most people refer to when they talk about accountability. Almost all current accountability systems are based on what is called a bureaucratic model. This is a top-down approach in which the personnel of a school (teachers and principal) are accountable to the school district, state, or, with the enactment of the No Child Left Behind legislation, the federal government.

The bureaucratic model typically relies on high-stakes testing. Improvement or success are defined in terms of student outcomes on standardized tests, and accountability is enforced by rewarding or sanctioning schools (and sometimes teachers and students) depending on both absolute levels of test scores and changes over a period of time.

Another model, which is incorporated to varying degrees in current accountability systems, has been called professional accountability. The accountability of professionals can be seen when a principal takes a strong role as an instructional leader, when teachers meet to agree on standards for student work, when teachers receive in-class coaching. These kinds of activities enable a school staff to develop a collective sense of responsibility for children's learning and a shared commitment to high standards.

The professional approach relies on internal motivation. The consequences for educators are in answering to one's peers about students' success and the reputation of the school.

Although each of the predominant ways of viewing accountability can make important contributions to an accountability system, the bureaucratic and professional models, even when combined, are not sufficient for solving the problems of urban schools. These models are limited because they view schools in isolation, failing to take into account the complex social and political contexts in which schools function.

Public accountability, in dealing with the complex realities that influence student learning, broadens the range of stakeholders that contribute to school improvement.

Public accountability in action

Since 1999, Research for Action (RFA), in collaboration with the Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform, has been studying community organizing groups across the country that are working for school improvement in low-income communities.