Building Leadership Capacity in Smart Education Systems

Article PDF | | View on Single Page

Routinely Using Evidence to Examine and Address Systemic Disparities
The process of confronting beliefs and assumptions, along with the massive amounts of data that schools and districts must collect to meet increased accountability demands, can unearth some uncomfortable realities. Disaggregated performance data generated by the requirements of No Child Left Behind leave little doubt that traditional public systems do a far better job of meeting the needs of White, middle-class children than the needs of poor and minority children. Scheurich and Skrla (2003) note that inequities are built systematically into the processes and procedures of school systems and have become part of the norms for public education.

Our work with districts and their partners has shown that knowing how to gather and, most important, how to use evidence – qualitative and quantitative data and research on proven best practices – is a fundamental capacity that leaders in all stakeholder groups need to develop. Using evidence as a basis for discussion and decision making allows different stakeholders to find common ground, develop workable solutions, and keep the discussion from degenerating into a shouting match between opposing opinions or ideologies. Data can help identify patterns that hinder or prevent all student groups from being equally successful and suggest solutions that create new patterns of equity.

For example, the Annenberg Institute’s Central Office Review for Results and Equity (CORRE), completed in a number of urban districts around the country, is a complementary set of processes and tools designed to build the capacity of multiple education stakeholders to collaborate on developing evidence-based practice.³ For more information on CORRE and downloadable versions of reports on findings from different sites, see www.annenberginstitute.org/WeDo/CORRE.php. Superintendents, school board members, central office staff and administrators, teachers, principals, students, and community partners form a site team that works together to identify a key issue, gather data about related central office policies and practices, and develop a plan based on the findings. The development of leadership beyond formal district hierarchies builds the sense of ownership and shared accountability for outcomes on the part of a broad spectrum of stakeholders.

Documentation is an important aspect of using data to sustain a reform. Districts’ attempts to implement changes in practice are often marred by the lack of institutional memory or documented accounts of the successes and challenges of districts’ prior reform efforts. Organizational survival and leadership capacity is increased as breakthroughs and best practices are captured and shared within and across stakeholder groups. Documenting evidence of how a particular reform effort or change in instructional practice led to improved learning and outcomes for adults and students is key.

In Boston, for instance, the Aspen Institute and the Annenberg Institute (2006) conducted a study at the request of superintendent Thomas Payzant as he approached retirement to document what the district’s ten-year focus on instructional improvement accomplished and what was left to do. The report aimed to provide a useful document of the reform for the new district leadership, to help sustain the reform, and for other districts facing the challenges of a transition in leadership.

Broadening Measures of Student Outcomes
The current national focus on standards and accountability calls for schools and districts to show evidence of the impact of innovations and structures on student achievement. But measurable outcomes resulting from the capacity-building and cross-sector partnership work described in this article take longer and are more difficult to capture, analyze, and share with a public that sees standardized-test scores as the primary measure of progress. In response, schools and districts are beginning to develop strategies for collecting data (qualitative and quantitative) and documenting how working collaboratively leads to improvements in individual and collective practice.

One important, and often missing, piece of the puzzle is “leading indicators” that show early signs of progress in education – as they are used in economics – rather than lagging indicators, like test scores, that are gathered too late to help students and schools who have already failed.

• Ellen Foley and colleagues (2008) identified eight leading indicators that district leaders and other stakeholders have used in four communities to make informed decisions about student learning. For instance, early reading proficiency, the most common indicator, was used by the study districts to provide interventions both at the student level (tutoring and extra reading instruction to individual students not reaching the benchmark) and at the system level (investment in early childhood education to increase the numbers of students meeting the benchmark).
• John Garvey (2009) argues that among other obstacles to college access for New York City’s students, Regents exams and SATs are often poor indicators of student readiness for college. One of his recommendations is an index for college readiness that would reveal problems before students arrive at college and discover they must do extensive remedial work.
• Carol Ascher and Cindy Maguire (2007) describe how some high schools in New York City were able to “beat the odds” – greatly increasing college access for students with the same demographics as other schools with high dropout rates and low college-going rates. The study found that effective and creative use of data, including tracking credit accumulation, GPAs, GED scores, and college application rates, was one major strategy used by these schools.