Leaders as policy mediators: the reconceptualization of accountability

In this article, the authors explore the role of district and school leaders in reconceptualizing accountability policy by adapting and mediating it using three primary, strategies. Specifically, they discuss how leaders cultivate relationships and interactions, reculture the district and schools, and integrate and align school and district purposes, goals, policies, and practices to support the achievement of all children. The discussion and illustrations are drawn from two separate multiyear, multiphase research projects. The authors researched districts and schools in two states (North Carolina and Texas) that have more than a decade's experience with implementing accountability of the type required by the No Child Left Behind Act. These districts and schools have demonstrated success in raising achievement for all students and in closing achievement gaps between white students and students of color and between children from middle- and upper-income homes and children from low-income homes.

**********

NATIONWIDE, THOUSANDS OF superintendents and principals are working to implement provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Although there may be competing rationales for the design of and explanation for elements of NCLB, the legislation is in part based on the premise that institutional-level accountability will improve the organization of schools, instructional delivery, and student performance outcomes. Admittedly, this legislation places demands on superintendents, principals, and teachers for the increased achievement of all students, as measured minimally by general state assessments and other state-specific accountability criteria. Given these intensifying demands, it is imperative that we develop a better understanding of positive and productive (as opposed to inept or destructive) leadership responses to accountability policy. Particularly, we need to understand more fully how district and school leaders respond responsibly to increasing expectations for substantially higher levels of academic achievement for all children.

To date, researchers have documented a range of unproductive responses to accountability by district and campus leaders. For example, Ashby (2000) described principals who turned their schools into narrowly aligned "test factories." Other studies have revealed school leaders who adopt a "Christmas tree" approach and buy or adopt every glittery new program that comes along with little coherence or planning (Sebring & Bryk, 2000) and leaders who squander resources, narrow curriculum, and "deskill" teachers (McNeil, 2000). This previous research has contributed to our understanding of the misguided and inept decisions and actions that can be taken by superintendents and principals in the name of accountability.

Yet, although these negative leadership responses occur, it would be shortsighted for any of us--practitioners, researchers, policymakers, or policy analysts--to assume that these tales of unproductive leader behavior reflect the only reality present in districts and schools. (1) Indeed, there is research-based evidence of superintendents, other district leaders, and principals who have responded positively and productively to the requirements imposed by accountability policy. In many instances, these leaders have been proactive rather than simply reactive. However, further critical examination of the nature of responses to accountability policies is essential as policymakers at the federal, state, and local levels reconsider and redefine what schools and districts must be accountable for and to whom they are accountable, and as educators attempt to implement these policies. Thus, this article focuses on productive leadership responses to the demands inherent within today's strong accountability environment to improve student performance and to diminish historic achievement gaps among racially and economically diverse groups of students.

Leaders as Policy Mediators

The crucial mediating role of district and school leaders' responses to accountability is often overlooked in debates about policy success and failure. Yet, all educational policies enacted at the federal, state, and local levels are shaped and mediated in their implementation--in positive, neutral, mixed, or negative ways--through a long and complicated series of stages at the district, school, and classroom levels. For instance, 14,859 districts and 88,548 schools (NCES, 2002) nationwide filter the large, complex array of policies known collectively by the term accountability. (2) With this context in mind, we assert that school district and campus leaders are among the most essential actors who determine the relationship between policy intent and policy outcome at the local level. Specifically, because of their pivotal role, these local actors influence the policy implementation process. For instance, consider Spillane's (2002) description of the disposition that district and school leaders may assume throughout the policy implementation process. He explained, initially, "[District and school] officials must decipher what a policy means" (p. 377). Then, these leaders "decide whether and how to ignore, adapt, or adopt policy proposals into local policies and practices" (p. 377). In our discussion, we refer to leaders who possess the will and skill to respond positively and responsibly to accountability policies as policy mediators. Earlier research has characterized this type of policy mediation as the actions of street-level bureaucrats (Lipsky, 1980) or the practice of creative insubordination (Crowson & Morris, 1985; Haynes & Licata, 1995). (3)