View/Open - Drake University

sc:lllclilnlizcd ic\t scolrs. M'illl dl-npoul rates almost nonexinent and participation rates nearjnp
100 %, ~ ~ ; ldistricts l l *a\\! themsel\res as already having programming in place that engaged
and moti\rated students. They did not need increased standardized testing and reponir
recluil.ements lo offset already successful programs.
rllrldirr,q. Being required to do more with less had become a paR of the loura small
5chool contest. Pi~rticipants offered little surprise or hope that funding ~ould follow
~~and:itec. hut did chide lefislators. "If you don't fund things. don't expect them to get done or
done \\-ell." Others belie\.ed legislators simply lost sisht of "how much this would cost and
how long it niight take. Elmore (1001) suggested without the capacity building support
system. le_rislation is only capable of measurinz the results of the system; there is no
t'rarnc\~,ork for improving it:
Accountahilitv - ~\~srems
- do not produce performance: they mobilize incentives.
engagernent. a_cency. and capacity that produces performance. Accountability systems
do not. for the mnqt part. reflect any systematic coordination of capacity and
;~c~coi~ri~;~~~~Iit\.
nor do the\. reflect an!. clear understandins of what capacities are
r'cli~ircd 10 111cr.r cupcctatinn\ lor performance and \\,here the respnsihility for
CIIII;IIICI~~ tlicr4c c ;~p;~~i~~c\ lies. .\ more specific and coherent theop of action for
;~~coi~nt;~l~ilit~~
~!.~ICIII\ 1~0i1111 help . . .\!*hose responsibility is it to insure that these
c-ontlit1on4 arc nict '.' IS i~ i4 the stare that ini~iates the accountability requirements. then
it i\ tlic ,I:II~', rc\pnn\ihilit!. to nsqure that the capacities are in place to meet those
r~.qi~irc.ri~cnt\ r p. I .: 1.
:I finill tl~oi~~ht cnnie iron1 p:lnicipant~ n.ho believed "there are cennin thinss
tor n 1 ; 1 of. Ci\.en [he resources. schools ail1 do 3 pmd job \\.ith kids.
?\ern\\ ;\I] tllrce c~i\lric~s le~isI:~tive
126
17 3
requirements of HF --7- wre conlnlunicated
L
-