The Accountability Gap Part 3
Reducing variability in quality instruction is the goal. But why is it so hard?
Walk into any school, and you’ll find classrooms that feel like they’re running on rocket fuel—students engaged, teachers in their element, and learning visibly happening. Down the hall, though, there might be a different story: disorganized transitions, students staring out the window, and a teacher executing cheap Teachers Pay Teachers activities.
This reality is often a manifestation of the accountability gap: the distance between expectations and execution.
Previously, we discussed the causes of the accountability gap, but let’s take a closer look at the chief role of school leaders: reducing variability.
While most leaders recognize the importance of this goal, achieving it remains one of the toughest challenges in education. Why is it so difficult to ensure that every student has access to high-quality instruction, regardless of their classroom?
Reducing variability in classroom quality is the foundation of equitable education.
The Challenge of Variability in Instruction
Instructional variability refers to differences in teaching methods and rigor, routines, and expectations across classrooms. These differences aren’t inherently bad; they reflect teachers' creativity and autonomy. However, when variability becomes inconsistent, it directly impacts student outcomes. Some classrooms become islands of excellence, while others struggle to meet even basic instructional goals.
Research highlights the consequences of unchecked variability, showing that school teaching quality inconsistencies can widen achievement gaps. This means that even in high-performing schools, students may experience vastly different educational outcomes depending on their teacher, a troubling equity issue.
In trajectory-changing schools, however, there is a high level of consistency, with most lessons rated as good or strong, significantly improving student outcomes according to TNTP’s The Opportunity Makers. This contrasts with typical schools, where only about half of the lessons are rated positively, often due to unclear expectations and lack of support for teachers.
If we are to truly improve student learning, it is vital that we identify the most important barrier to such improvement. And that barrier is the effect of within-school variability on learning.’ (Hattie 2015 p.1).
Why Reducing Variability Feels So Hard
1. Balancing Accountability with Autonomy
Teachers enter the profession because they love working with students, not because they dream of implementing standardized routines. Yet reducing variability requires consistency in lesson planning, classroom management, and instructional practices. School leaders often face resistance when trying to introduce school-wide frameworks or non-negotiables. For many educators, this can feel like an erosion of their professional judgment.
What’s the solution? A focus on collaboration over compliance. TNTP’s research emphasizes that buy-in improves when teachers feel they are co-creating solutions rather than having them dictated from above. Leaders must frame consistency as a shared commitment to equity rather than a top-down mandate. Highlighting the "why" behind new initiatives—such as the potential to reduce learning gaps—can also foster understanding and alignment.
2. The "Leaky Bucket" of Professional Development
Even when schools invest heavily in training and development, the impact often fades quickly. A 2017 brief by the Learning Policy Institute found that while effective professional development can improve teaching, it’s often poorly implemented and without follow-up support. Even the best training can fail to translate into meaningful change without ongoing coaching and feedback.
This is where the accountability gap widens. Teachers who embrace new strategies might not have the time, support, or encouragement to refine them. Others may revert to old habits without clear expectations and feedback cycles. Professional development must shift from one-off sessions to embedded, ongoing learning opportunities. Coaching cycles, peer observation, and targeted workshops create the scaffolding necessary to sustain improvements.
3. School Leaders Are Spread Too Thin
School leaders are critical in reducing variability, but their capacity is often stretched to the breaking point. Between managing operations, addressing behavioral crises, and supporting staff, instructional leadership can take a backseat. Yet, instructional variability becomes entrenched without consistent classroom observations, meaningful feedback, and data-driven conversations.
To address this, districts must prioritize leadership development and invest in systems that support instructional leaders. Time must be explicitly allocated for classroom walkthroughs, coaching, and data analysis. Delegating operational tasks to other staff members or investing in leadership teams can help leaders focus on what matters most: teaching and learning.
A Goal Worth Pursuing
Reducing variability in classroom quality isn’t just about accountability but equity. Every child deserves access to high-quality instruction, regardless of their assigned teacher. While the work is hard, the stakes couldn’t be higher. School leaders can close the gap and ensure that excellence becomes the standard—not the exception- by fostering collaboration, providing consistent support, and building shared accountability. For students, the difference between a thriving classroom and a struggling one can shape their entire educational trajectory. The effort to reduce variability is not just an operational challenge—it is a moral imperative.
Join the discussion! What challenges do you have in reducing variability? Is this how the accountability gap manifests?
