At the Forefront of the New Accountability Era: Early Implementation in California's CORE Waiver Districts

• In Event: 53.060 - Rethinking Accountability: Early Research on California's CORE Waiver Districts

Abstract

Purpose

As early adopters in the new post-NCLB regime, California’s CORE waiver districts have much to teach the country about implementing a new accountability system that includes both academic and non-academic measures of school performance and capacity-building interventions at the school and district level. In this paper we ask: How are districts and schools responding to CORE’s measurement system and school interventions that rely on peer-to-peer collaboration to build capacity for improvement? What factors are shaping implementation?

Theoretical Framework

We draw on several conceptions of accountability to frame our research, including principal-agent theory (Holmstrom & Milgrom, 1991; Loeb & McEwan, 2006), as well as notions of bureaucratic and professional accountability (Burke, 2004; Firestone & Shipps, 2005; O’Day, 2002). Our investigation of peer-to-peer interventions also draws on organizational learning literature, specifically Argyris and Schon’s (1978) theory of single- and double-loop learning.

Method and Data Sources

We used a multiple case study design (Yin, 2013) to gather data on educators’ experiences implementing CORE’s new accountability index and peer-to-peer interventions at school and district levels. In 2015-2016, researchers interviewed CORE leaders and central office administrators (n=45) and principals (n=15) in the six CORE districts, observed CORE meetings (42 hours), and gathered documents (e.g., presentations, reports). We analyzed each CORE district case individually and then conducted cross-case analyses to examine how implementation varied by district and the associated factors (Miles & Huberman, 2013).

Results

Our analyses yielded two interrelated sets of findings. In regards to implementation of the new measurement system, we found 1) districts conveyed strong buy-in and commitment to the overall accountability model, particularly the holistic set of measures, the emphasis on growth, and focus on non-punitive consequences; 2) yet there was considerable variation in the level of understanding, buy-in, and use of individual measures in the accountability index and 3) with the consequences of the accountability system in flux due to the changing policy context, school and district staff reported uncertainty about how to use measures.

In terms of school-level interventions we found that although interviewees were generally positive about the prospect of collaborative improvement efforts, they acknowledged substantive concerns about the identification and matching of peers, the reciprocity of collaborative efforts, and limited capacity. In addition, we found that single-loop learning was more common than double-loop learning, of which we found a few promising examples. Supporting the measurement and school intervention work was CORE’s district-level focus on networking and capacity building for system improvement; we found overwhelming support for cross-district collaboration.

Finally, we uncovered three cross-cutting tensions in the implementation of this new accountability system: 1) customizations versus standardization: local adaptation created both benefits and challenges, 2) accountability versus continuous improvement: balancing dual purposes was not easy; and 3) inputs versus outcomes: the focus on student performance may be eclipsing attention to capacity.

Scholarly Significance

These findings offer important lessons for state, district, and school leaders and policy makers as they design and implement new accountability systems—particularly in response to the Every Student Succeeds Act.

Authors

• Julie A. Marsh, University of Southern California

• Susan C. Bush-Mecenas, University of Southern California

• Heather Hough, Stanford University

• Vicki Park, San José State University

• Taylor N. Allbright, University of Southern California

• Michelle Hall, University of Southern California