Accountability and Implementation
A good friend recently pointed out that the problems we help educators solve at bravEd are problems of implementation as much as they are problems of what it is school leaders should account for. I agree.
I like to think of it like this: every school leader I know wants to implement the right things, but in order for that to happen each school leader needs to account for what they do in such a way that they can be trusted to do those right things. After all, the right things are not always the easiest to see or do. Many decisions can feel contradictory to those outside a school. And because oftentimes a school leader will rightly need to address the latest set of controversies in the popular press in such a way that they will only please some of the stakeholders, trust is the only way for a leader to survive that sort of thing.
One other implementation problem my friend pointed out is that organizations that punish non-compliance rather than reward effectiveness are going to kill their chances at implementing efforts designed to improve the organization. Sound familiar? Punishing non-compliance as if that also represents effectiveness—which is what school accountability in its current form is designed to do—removes effectiveness from the equation, leaving the worst of bureaucratic processes as the day-to-day work of the organization. If that is how a school in fact operates, that school is going to miss every meaningful goal regarding a student’s needs. Not a good place to be.
I suppose I see implementation and accounting for our efforts as two pistons in an engine that done well kill the compliance mentality and focus an organization on its mission. Each time implementation or accountability fires properly it tees the other up to do the same. We account for what we do in a way that is deeply meaningful to stakeholders, that creates trust in the organization, which can then get behind implementations based on what will make the organization more effective (and less bureaucratic), even when they aren't well understood. And the better we implement the right things, the more our accountings and the evidence behind them will reflect that and the resulting trust will then increase the capacity for future implementations.
This process is particularly important for complex organizations that do complex things, as most stakeholders will be unlikely to grasp the details in an implementation and must therefore trust in those that understand them. Trust is the lifeblood of complex organizations, and accounting for effectiveness and the implementation of what will make you more effective is the only way to get it.
My friend also pointed out that this process can have some pretty immediate effects—something I’ve personally seen in my work. That’s why I like the engine/piston metaphor—it can force movement in a surprisingly small amount of time.
One other note: this engine metaphor and the way school accountability occurs in its current form should be seen as two parts of a Venn diagram that never intersect and should never intersect. Punishing non-compliance and pretending that represents a path to solid implementations, which current school accountability is designed to do, is a surefire way to reduce schooling to a rote set of steps that serves no one. Accounting/Implementation/Accounting etc. is a process that can do just the opposite through the trust it creates. Which is why we should do it.
I like to think of it like this: every school leader I know wants to implement the right things, but in order for that to happen each school leader needs to account for what they do in such a way that they can be trusted to do those right things. After all, the right things are not always the easiest to see or do. Many decisions can feel contradictory to those outside a school. And because oftentimes a school leader will rightly need to address the latest set of controversies in the popular press in such a way that they will only please some of the stakeholders, trust is the only way for a leader to survive that sort of thing.
One other implementation problem my friend pointed out is that organizations that punish non-compliance rather than reward effectiveness are going to kill their chances at implementing efforts designed to improve the organization. Sound familiar? Punishing non-compliance as if that also represents effectiveness—which is what school accountability in its current form is designed to do—removes effectiveness from the equation, leaving the worst of bureaucratic processes as the day-to-day work of the organization. If that is how a school in fact operates, that school is going to miss every meaningful goal regarding a student’s needs. Not a good place to be.
I suppose I see implementation and accounting for our efforts as two pistons in an engine that done well kill the compliance mentality and focus an organization on its mission. Each time implementation or accountability fires properly it tees the other up to do the same. We account for what we do in a way that is deeply meaningful to stakeholders, that creates trust in the organization, which can then get behind implementations based on what will make the organization more effective (and less bureaucratic), even when they aren't well understood. And the better we implement the right things, the more our accountings and the evidence behind them will reflect that and the resulting trust will then increase the capacity for future implementations.
This process is particularly important for complex organizations that do complex things, as most stakeholders will be unlikely to grasp the details in an implementation and must therefore trust in those that understand them. Trust is the lifeblood of complex organizations, and accounting for effectiveness and the implementation of what will make you more effective is the only way to get it.
My friend also pointed out that this process can have some pretty immediate effects—something I’ve personally seen in my work. That’s why I like the engine/piston metaphor—it can force movement in a surprisingly small amount of time.
One other note: this engine metaphor and the way school accountability occurs in its current form should be seen as two parts of a Venn diagram that never intersect and should never intersect. Punishing non-compliance and pretending that represents a path to solid implementations, which current school accountability is designed to do, is a surefire way to reduce schooling to a rote set of steps that serves no one. Accounting/Implementation/Accounting etc. is a process that can do just the opposite through the trust it creates. Which is why we should do it.
Comments
Post a Comment