Alan Daly’s post raises – again – the question of the role of school districts in improving teaching and learning. Do school districts matter? At Pivot Learning Partners, we first asked this question a decade ago, and the answer came back a resounding yes. Here’s what we did: we looked at test score data for schools across the state, controlling for issues like poverty and language status and all the other important variables we could think of. Here’s what we found then, and what we keep finding every time we repeat the analysis: those schools that are “beating the odds” – producing higher-than-expected gains in student learning – are not randomly distributed across the state. There are some exceptions, but these kinds of schools are found, over and over again, to be clustered in particular school districts: places like Long Beach and Garden Grove, but also lesser-known districts like Rowland Unified in Southern California or Elk Grove in Sacramento or Oak Grove in San Jose. Clusters like these argue persuasively for a “district effect” on student achievement.
Why , then, does the question keep coming up about whether districts matter? I think there are two reasons. One is that the story of the crusading, independent, heroic principal who succeeds in spite of the interference of inept bureaucrats from downtown appeals to something in the American psyche. We love David and Goliath stories, and this is one version. And it is not wrong: such principals do exist. But they are the exception, not the rule. The more important reason why the question “do districts matter” persists is that school districts, and especially large urban districts, have been forced by a welter of state and federal regulations into playing the inept bureaucrat role. People keep asking “do districts matter?” because, while districts CAN make a positive difference, many do not.
Some would argue that the solution to this situation is to dismantle both the compliance rules and the district as well. We at Pivot Learning Partners would argue that this cure has the potential to be as bad as the disease. California badly needs an equitable system of schools in the state – a system that can guarantee a good school in every neighborhood, a good teacher in every classroom. Whose job is it to create this system? State policymakers can lay the foundation for it: a solid set of standards and assessments, an adequate flow of resources that follow the children that need them, a system for training teachers….. these are the conditions that state policymakers can and should create. But whose job is it to translate that into the guarantee of a good school in every community? This is not a task that can be assigned to principals – they are responsible for their school. Granted, school districts have not always either embraced this equity role or carried it out effectively. But this is emphatically a local responsibility and it must reside with the district. There is no one else to do it.
So the bottom line is that districts not only can matter – if we are to create the school system that California needs, they must. Kudos to San Diego for taking this on.