Search results

Everyone wants accountability in education. President Bill Clinton wanted accountability in education. In his 1999 State of the Union address, the President announced “…a plan that for the first time holds states and school districts accountable for progress and rewards them for results.” Through his proposed Education Accountability Act, President Clinton sought to insist, “…all states and school districts must turn around their worst-performing schools, or shut them down” (1999, pp. 202–203).

The purpose of this paper is to direct attention to the intersection of external and internal accountability systems within urban schools, and the role of school leadership, especially that of the principal, in managing this intersection. In particular, the paper explores how school leaders are able to strengthen and sustain the school's internal accountability system, in pursuit of school‐defined learning improvement agenda, and at the same time respond productively to external accountability demands. The paper also seeks to identify consequences of these leaders’ efforts to navigate an often problematic set of converging demands.

This paper draws on findings from a larger multi‐case study of learning‐focused leadership in 15 schools in four urban school districts in the USA. Schools were chosen to represent those that were “making progress” (by local measures). Data were collected over 18 months, spanning two school years, from Spring 2007 to Fall 2008. Data collection included multiple site visits, semi‐structured interviews and observations of leadership activity across school and district settings, and a variety of documentary evidence.

Though working in substantially different contexts, these leaders found remarkably similar ways of crafting tools and creating occasions, from the array of external accountability demands and resources, to serve internal accountability purposes. They did so by internalizing external expectations and developing accountable practice within the school, leading through data, and modelling what it meant to learn to lead in a fully accountable way. As they did so, they reshaped the scope of instruction and the instructional improvement conversation, and also made teaching and leadership practice more public.

This paper extends discussions of school‐level accountability in two ways. First, it updates scholarship on accountability by examining school‐level responses at a time five years into the new accountability context in the USA defined by strict system‐wide expectations and mechanisms. Second, the paper demonstrates ways in which the often onerous demands of external accountability systems can be treated as a resource by school leaders and used in ways that bolster the school's capacity for accountable professional practice.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the tensions between external accountability obligations, educator's professional values, and student needs. Strategic, cognitive, and moral dimensions of this tension are captured with the central category of integrity.

This is a mixed methods study that compares five exceptionally high performing middle schools with four exceptionally low performing middle schools in the state of California (USA), controlling for demographics, school context factors, and below average performance range.

It is found that schools under similar circumstances differ on the degree of integrity. Schools with high integrity have a good balance between values and reality, are more cohesive and more open to dissent. In each case, integrity was associated with an expansion of agency that combined moral earnestness with prudent strategizing and actively constructing interpretive frames that maintained a school's sense of self‐worth. Integrity develops or survives with a good dose of educational leaders’ personal strength, but also depends on leaders’ insistence to fully exhaust the moral horizon of an institution which obligates educators to balance equity, system efficiency, child‐centeredness and professionalism with prudence.

This is a case study of nine schools in one state. Explanatory relationships can be explored, but not generalized.

The research has implications for leadership. It demonstrates the power of integrity as a key virtue of leadership under accountability pressures. It shows the different ways integrity can be forged in schools and the different ways it can be missed with consequences for school life.

The paper stresses the point that it is quite conceivable that ideological zeal, Machiavellian strategizing, or eager system conformism may produce more forceful agency than integrity. But as everyday responses they are not as realistic, ethical or productive as the striving for integrity.

The practitioner literature often points to integrity as a desirable quality when dealing with tensions of the sort addressed in this paper, but little systematic theoretical thinking and empirical exploration of this concept exists. The paper makes an advance in both areas.

Much has been written about student accountability, teacher accountability, and school accountability. More limited research is available on administrator accountability. Recently there have been substantial initiatives undertaken world‐wide to increase educational accountability. With increasing demands and changing expectations in the role of school administration, researchers, practitioners and policy makers and departments of education have become socially preoccupied with educational accountability. The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive literature review on accountability of school administrators over the last two decades to demonstrate how aspiring, new and practicing school administrators understand and meet the demands of accountability in a time of tumultuous change when the stakes are high.

We examine how school districts in California help their high schools respond to state accountability requirements. We discovered two contrasting forms of district interventions: those aiming to increase schools’ internal coherence and those encouraging direct but narrower responses to state requirements. Drawing on interviews in six districts and eight high schools, we find that many district efforts focus on immediate responses to state requirements to raise test scores. Yet, our analysis suggests that without strong district efforts to increase internal coherence, interventions aimed at eliciting school responses will be less beneficial over time.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how test‐based accountability has influenced school and district practices and explore how states and districts might consider creating expanded systems of measures to address the shortcomings of traditional accountability. It provides research‐based guidance for entities that are developing or adopting new measures of school performance.

The study relies on literature review, consultation with expert advisers, review of state and district documentation, and semi‐structured interviews with staff at state and local education agencies and research institutions.

The research shows mixed effects of test‐based accountability on student achievement and demonstrates that teachers and administrators change their practices in ways that respond to the incentives provided by the system. The review of state and district measurement systems shows widespread use of additional measures of constructs, such as school climate and college readiness.

There is a clear need for additional research on the short‐ and long‐term effects of expanded systems of measures. In particular, currently little is known about how the inclusion of input and process measures influences educators’ practices or student outcomes.

The research suggests several practical steps that can be taken to promote effective systems of measurement, including providing supports for high‐quality teaching to accompany new measures, offering flexibility to respond to local needs, and conducting validity studies that address the various purposes of the measures.

The paper provides new information about how states and districts are expanding their systems of measures for various purposes, and informs accountability policy by highlighting the benefits and limitations of current outcomes‐based approaches to accountability and by clarifying the trade‐offs and decisions that should be considered.

This paper reports a policy research project intended to clarify the accountability processes and criteria that should be used to collect data, report and improve the quality of learning, teaching and leadership in Tasmania. Its outcomes informed the design of a new three‐year school review process that seeks to integrate local governance, school planning, action research evaluation, external reviews, and systemic performance monitoring. Behind the recommended policy is a touchstone set of processes and criteria that comprise a theory of mutual and educative accountability. This theory represents an attempt to reconcile centralism with pluralism, exhibits liberal, democratic and limited forms of community government, anticipates educative forms of leadership, and values communitarian over collegial and individualistic forms of professionalism.

The purpose of this paper is to examine issues of quality and quality assurance in Kenyan schools, identify reasons why Kenya government has difficulties in achieving its well documented search for quality education and to trace the process for ensuring the accountability of teachers in Kenya. This focus is done under conditions of significant changes in government policies and educational restructuring.

The reflections are done through a review of variety of research and analytical sources.

The review shows that the government, whose approach has been ambivalent and paradoxical, has determined teacher accountability and that the underlying cause of poor quality education in Kenya's schools is not the performance of teachers per se but deeply rooted management practices and other government policies which will have to change if this dream is to be realized. The evaluation of teachers' work should not be separated from development since quality is dependent on professional development. There is no development without challenge and quality development depends on the participation of all persons involved in teaching and learning.

The most obvious practical implication of this paper is that education in Kenya needs complete overhaul and not piecemeal reforms. Above all, there is need to invest regularly in the development of teachers, as teachers need access to continuous and effective updating and updating systems.

This paper provides an opportunity for reflection and builds a foundation on some of the key challenges that face education and teachers in Kenya. The paper suggests directions for leading Kenyan schools into a successful future.

The expansion of alternative education, globally, has coincided with a shift towards greater accountability for ensuring educational access and opportunity, high academic standards and increased graduation rates. While studies suggest the pervasive influence of accountability may be redefining how school leaders provide meaningful learning experiences and facilitating high achievement, little is known about school leaders of alternative schools administering accountability polices. If there are inconsistencies between meaningful learning experiences for at‐risk students and performance‐based standards outcomes, this may suggest issues around equity and alternative schools that should be evaluated. Using a theoretical frame of policy implementation, specifically the authoritative design of policy and social constructs of compliance, this study aims to examine how alternative school leaders implement accountability policies.

This cross‐case study employs a qualitative thematic strategy of data analysis in conjunction with Fairclough's three‐dimensional framework of discourse analysis to examine how seven school leaders at five alternative schools in California and Texas interpret and administer accountability policy.

The theme of reconciliation: tension between compliance and innovation was revealed from the data. The discourses surrounding the nature of students at risk and policy compliance converged, creating a notion that alternative school leaders were losing their autonomy as knowing what is best for their students amidst increasing accountability standards.

While many of the administrators are positioned by their districts to act as an at‐risk student expert when designing or sustaining academic and social programs at their respective alternative schools, they are in the process of losing some of their autonomy because of the pressures derived from accountability standards. However, school leaders continue to take responsive and reflexive actions to create distance between their settings and accountability policy in order to protect their students and schools from external pressures.

The study presents original findings in the area of accountability policy implementation in alternative school settings. This work suggests that the social constructs of compliance and student risk factors converge with the authoritative nature of accountability policy. In turn, tension was created for alternative school leaders as they consider what is best for at‐risk students.

The large amount of tax and tuition dollars spent on both public and private primary and secondary education in the United States is motivating an ever-increasing demand for school performance and accountability information. The information that is needed by constituents depends on the type of school accountability system in place. Although the Government Accounting Standards Board proposed a model for school performance information over a decade ago, there remains considerable variability in the type and quality of information that is provided to by schools. This article describes school performance and accountability information currently provided by both public and private primary and secondary schools. In addition, suggestions are provided on how to make improvements in the information provided by schools and districts to their constituents.