Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 37–46 | Cite as

School leadership in an age of accountability: Tensions between managerial and professional accountability

  • Jorunn MøllerEmail author
Article

Abstract

Standards and accountability have become a central issue of educational reform in many countries. Professional standards for teachers and principals have been developed, and benchmarking and comparison are at the heart of the new performance assessment. ‘Designer leadership’ has become a defining theme for leadership in the appearance of regimes of assessment (Gronn 2003). Although performance standards can provide comprehensive descriptions of the elements of principals’ work, and the development processes used in validating the standards are often hugely consultative, there are several important weaknesses connected to it. A main criticism is related to its decontextualized feature (Louden and Wildy 1999). In addition, standardized evaluation policies and protocols tend to create as many problems as they solve, and the discourses of accountability are often a mixture of several forms of accountability (Elmore 2004; Sinclair 1995; Sirotnik 2005). The paper aims to explore frameworks of accountability which may support student learning and highlights claims about what would allow school leaders to take risks and be imaginative in their approach to school improvement.

Keywords

Managerial accountability Professional accountability School improvement School leadership Standards in education 

References

  1. Day, C., & Leithwood, K. (Eds.). (2007). Successful principal leadership in times of change. An international perspective. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Elmore, R. F. (2004). Agency, reciprocity, and accountability in democratic education. Paper presented for 1st International Summit on Leadership in Education. Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
  3. Elmore, R. (2006). Leadership as the practice of improvement. Paper presented at the International Conference on Perspectives on Leadership for Systemic Improvement, sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), London.Google Scholar
  4. Gronn, P. (2003). The new work of educational leaders. Changing leadership practice in an era of school reform. Thousand Oaks: Paul Chapman Publishing. A SAGE Publications Company.Google Scholar
  5. Höög, J., Johansson, O., & Olofsson, A. (2007). Successful principalship—the Swedish case. In C. Day & K. Leithwood (Eds.), Successful principal leadership in times of change. An international perspective (pp. 87–103). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Hopmann, S. (2007). Epilogue: No child, no school, no state left behind: Comparative research in the age of accountability. In S. Hopmann, G. Brinek, & M. Retzl (Eds.), PISA zufolge PISA: PISA according to PISA. Schulpädagogik und pädagogishe psykologie, Band 6 (pp. 363–416). Münster: Wien LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. Klette, K., & Lie, S. (2006). Sentral funn. Foreløpige resultater fra PISA+ prosjektet (Preliminary Findings from the PISA+ project). Det utdanningsvitenskapelige fakultet, Universitetet i Oslo.Google Scholar
  8. Louden, W., & Wildy, H. (1999). Short shrift to long lists. An alternative approach to the development of performance standards for school principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(2), 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lundgren, U. (1990). Educational policy-making, decentralisation and evaluation. In M. Granheim, M. Kogan, & U. Lundgren (Eds.), Evaluation as policymaking. Introducing evaluation into a national decentralised educational system (pp. 23–42). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. MacBeath, J., Moos, L., & Riley, K. (1996). Leadership in a changing world. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration (Book 1, pp. 223–251). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Møller, J. (2005). Coping with accountability: Tension between reason and emotion. In C. Sugrue (Ed.), Passionate principalship: Learning from life histories of school leaders (pp. 89–105). London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  12. Møller, J. (2007). Educational leadership and the new language of learning. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9(1), 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Møller, J., Eggen, A., Fuglestad, O. L., Langfeldt, G., Presthus, A. M., Skrøvset, S., et al. (2007). Successful leadership based on democratic values. In C. Day & K. Leithwood (Eds.), Successful principal leadership in times of change. An international perspective (pp. 71–87). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Moos, L., & Møller, J. (2003). Schools and leadership in transition: The case of Scandinavia. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 353–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moos, L., Krejsler, J., Kofod, K. K., & Jensen, B. B. (2007). Communicative strategies among successful Danish school principals. In C. Day & K. Leithwood (Eds.), Successful principal leadership in times of change. An international perspective (pp. 103–117). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Oakes, J., Blasi, G., & Rogers, J. (2005). Accountability for adequate and equitable opportunities to learn. In K. A. Sirotnik (Ed.), Holding accountability accountable. What ought to matter in public education (pp. 82–100). New York, London: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  17. O’Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 293–330.Google Scholar
  18. Ranson, S. (2003). Public accountability in the age of neo-liberal governance. Journal of Educational Policy, 18(5), 459–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sinclair, A. (1995). The chameleon of accountability: Forms and discourses. Accounting Organizations and Society, 20(2/3), 219–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sirotnik, K. A. (Ed.). (2005). Holding accountability accountable. What ought to matter in public education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  21. Sockett, H. (1993). The moral base for teacher professionalism. New York: Teacher College Press.Google Scholar
  22. Soder, R. (2005). The double bind of civic education assessment and accountability. In K. A. Sirotnik (Ed.), Holding accountability accountable. What ought to matter in public education (pp. 100–116). New York, London: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Teacher Education and School DevelopmentUniversity of OsloBlindern, OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations