The Hurricane of Accountabilities? Comparison of Accountability Comprehensions and Practices

  • Lejf Moos
  • Guri Skedsmo
  • Jonas Höög
  • Anders Olofsson
  • Lauri Johnson
Part of the Studies in Educational Leadership book series (SIEL, volume 14)


During the past 5 years since we visited the schools and principals were included in the International Successful School Principals Project for the first time, major changes have occurred in the ways in which schools are governed and managed. Since the start of the project in 2001, the “hurricane of accountability” has reached all countries in the project. This recent development is, first of all, characterized by an increased focus on student achievement and performance measurement as a key part of evaluation processes. Second, it implies a changed concept of educational quality, which in form seems to be defined by expectations about specific outcomes. Third, it indicates a belief that any divergence between the expected outcomes and the level of achievements can be identified. Along with this development, schools are increasingly being perceived as the unit of measurement and the need to make actors such as principals and teachers accountable is emerging.

This chapter describes main changes in school governance with an emphasis on the establishment of systems to control and monitor educational quality. Moreover, it investigates similarities and differences in the ways of which principals in the USA on the one hand, and principals in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden on the other, respond to expectations about improving student outcomes.


Student Achievement Educational Quality School Leadership Charter School Accountability System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bachmann, K., Sivesind, K., et al. (2008). Evaluering og ansvarliggjøring i skolen. In G. Langfeldt, E. Elstad, & S. Hopmann (Eds.), Ansvarlighet i skolen. Politiske spørsmål og pedagogiske svar (pp. 94–122). Fagernes: Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
  2. Beane, J. A., & Apple, M. W. (1999). The case for democratic schools. In M. W. Apple & J. A. Beane (Eds.), Democratic schools, lessons from chalk face. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cobb, C. D., & Rallis, S. F. (2008). District responses to NCLB: Where is the justice? Leadership and Policy in Schools, 7, 178–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy in education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Dubnick, M. J. (2005). Accountability and the promise of performance. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(3), 376–417.Google Scholar
  6. Firestone, W. A., & Shipps, D. (2005). How do leaders interpret conflicting accountabilities to improve student learning? In W. A. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda for research in educational leadership (pp. 81–100). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  7. Gundem, B. B. (1993). Mot en ny skolevirkelighet? Læreplanen i et sentraliserings- og desentraliseringsperspektiv. Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal.Google Scholar
  8. Heinrich, C. J. (2005). Measuring public sector and effectiveness. In G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (pp. 25–37). London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Hertzberg, F. (2008). Assessment of writing in Norway – a case of balancing dilemmas. In A. Havnes & L. McDovell (Eds.), Balancing dilemmas in assessment and learning in contemporary education (pp. 51–60). Routledge, Research in Education.Google Scholar
  10. Hood, C. (2007). Intellectual obsolescene and intellectual makeovers: Reflections on the tools of government after two decades. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 20(1), 127–144.Google Scholar
  11. Johnson, L. (2007). Rethinking successful school leadership in challenging U.S. schools: Culturally responsive practices in school-community relationships. International Studies in Educational Administration, 35(3), 49–57.Google Scholar
  12. Karlsen, G. (1993). Desentralisering – løsning eller oppløsning? Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal.Google Scholar
  13. Karseth, B., & Sivesind, K. (2009). Læreplanstudier – perspektiver og posisjoner. In E. L. Dale (Ed.), Læreplan i et forskningsperspektiv (pp. 23–61). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  14. Krejsler, J. (2007). Styring af skolen mellem ledelse og selvledelse Meninger i ledelse – succesfuld skoleledelse mellem visioner og selvledelse (p. 262). Frederikshavn: Dafolo.Google Scholar
  15. Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2005). What we know about successful school leadership. In W. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda: Directions for research on educational leadership (pp. 22–47). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  16. McKenzie, K. B., Christman, D. E., et al. (2008). From the field: A proposal for educating leaders for social justice. Education Administration Quaterly, 44(1), 111–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Møller, J., & J. M. Paulsen (2001). Skolelederes arbeidsforhold i grunnskolen. En undersøkelse blant skoleledere som er organisert i Norsk lærerlag. Acta Didactica 3/2001, Department of Teacher Education and School Development, University of Oslo, Oslo.Google Scholar
  18. Møller, J., Eggen, A., et al. (2005). Successful school leadership: The Norwegian case. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(6), 584–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Møller, J., K. Sivesind, et al. (2006). Skolelederundersøkelsen 2005. Om arbeidsforhold, evalueringspraksis og ledelse i skolen. Acta Didactica. 1/2006. Institutt for lærerutdanning og skoleutvikling, Universitetet i Oslo, Oslo.Google Scholar
  20. Moos, L. (2003). Pædagogisk ledelse – om ledelsesopgaven og relationerne i uddannelsesinstitutioner [Educational leadership – on the leadership task and relations in educational institutions]. Copenhagen: Børsen.Google Scholar
  21. Moos, L. (2006). Editorial. What Kinds of Democracy in Education are Facilitated by Supra- and Transnational Agencies? European Educational Research Journal, 5(2 & 3), 160–168.Google Scholar
  22. Moos, L. (2009). A general context for new social technologies./I: Nordisk Pedagogik, 29(1), 79–92.Google Scholar
  23. Moos, L. (2008). School leadership for ‘democratic bildung’: Fundamentalist beliefs or critical reflection? School Leadership and Management, 28(3), 229–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moos, L. (2009) Hard and Soft Governance: the journey from transnational agencies to school leadership. In: European Educational Research Journal, 8(3), 397–406.Google Scholar
  25. Moos, L., Kofod, K. K., et al. (2005). Successful school principalship in Danish schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(6), 563–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moos, L., Krejsler, J., & Kofod, K. K. (2007). Meninger i ledelse – succesfuld skoleledelse mellem visioner og selvledelse [Senses in leadership – successful school leadership between visions and selfleadership]. Frederikshavn: Dafolo.Google Scholar
  27. Moos, L. (2010). From successful school leadership towards distributed leadership. In Stephan Gerhard Huber (Ed.), School leadership: international perspectives (101–124). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Olsen, J. P. (2002). Towards a European Administrative Space? Arena – Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo (26).Google Scholar
  29. Ozga, J. (2009). Governing education through data in England: From regulation to self-evaluation. Journal of Education Policy, 24(2), 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform. A comparative analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Popkewitz, T. S., & Wehlage, G. G. (1973). Accountability: Critique and alternative perspective. Interchange, 4(4), 48–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1999). Understanding governance. Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Bucklingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Sivesind, K., & Bachmann, K. (2008). Hva forandres med nye standarder? Krav og utfordringer med Kunnskapsløftets læreplaner. In G. Langfeldt, E. Elstad, & S. Hopmann (Eds.), Ansvarlighet i skolen. Politiske spørsmål og pedagogiske svar (pp. 62–93). Fagernes: Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
  34. Skedsmo, G. (2009). School governing in transition? Perspectives, purposes and perceptions of evaluation policy (Doctoral Thesis, University of Oslo, Oslo).Google Scholar
  35. Sleeter, C. E. (2006). Un-standardizing curriculum: Multicultural teaching in the standards-based classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  36. Strathern, M. (Ed.). (2000a). Audit cultures. Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Strathern, M. (2000b). The tyranny of transparency. British Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lejf Moos
    • 1
  • Guri Skedsmo
    • 2
  • Jonas Höög
    • 3
  • Anders Olofsson
    • 4
  • Lauri Johnson
    • 5
  1. 1.Danish School of EducationAarhus UniversityCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Teacher Education and School ResearchUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  3. 3.Centre for Principal DevelopmentUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  4. 4.Department of EducationMid Sweden UniversityHärnösandSweden
  5. 5.Department of Educational Leadership and Higher EducationBoston CollegeChestnut HillUSA

Personalised recommendations