Accountability Issues

The fifth defining principle of the LfL concept rests on a shared responsibility and sense of accountability among all the stakeholders. Though the concept of shared accountability sprouts from distributed leadership and co-constructivist approach of the LfL concept, is it possible that all the stakeholders have a similar understanding of the accountability in schools? Many researchers question whether all stakeholders perceive, react and assess the organizational environment similarly (Coburn, 2004; Coburn and Stein, 2010; Spillane and Diamond 2007; Spillane et al., 2001). Linking with and building on the sense making concept of Weick (1991), these researchers present an on-going discussion on the possibility that the actors within and from outside the organizations understand the need of and respond to

96

accountability systems alike and with a clear idea of their roles and „share‟ in the accountability. It is argued that they will have a different view and understanding of accountability and struggle to make sense of the environment and make choices in the context of any perceived opportunities and constraints. Swaffield (2008) highlights the role of „critical friend‟ for internal accountability and explains it as:

“… an outsider who not only has a different perspective on the school from those within it, but also assists them to see the familiar in a new light. The overall aim of a critical friendship is to support improvement through empowerment, by demonstrating a positive regard for people, and providing an informed critique of processes and practices. The critical friend‟s viewpoint has credibility if it is informed by an understanding of the specific situation and of the general context.” (Swaffield, 2008: p.323).

The importance of this type of accountability is considered effective by many. Thus the inspection, audit and other external accountability measures give way to an internal system of accountability under self-evaluation. MacBeath et al. (2009) states that all of these types of accountability are driven by three motives: the importance motive, the economic motive and the accountability motive. For all of these motives, setting the priorities under a shared vision is the key element required. Similarly Elmore (2004) also asserts that the outcome of accountability practice in schools can be effective if the focus remains on three broad aspects: (a) modifying content and instruction, (b) monitoring progress, and (c) instituting rewards and sanctions based on progress or lack thereof. Many studies assert that the effectiveness of this accountability system is dependent on the organizational capacity or „collective capacity‟ to

97

co-ordinate according to the demands of local context; leaders‟ and teachers‟ professional knowledge and skills and technical and financial resources influence its ability to successfully implement and reach the set goals of its internal accountability system (Boudett et al., 2005; Carnoy et al., 2007; Elmore, 2004). Simkins et al. (1998) asserts that accountability is a complex issue. Explaining three main components of the accountability process, he says that it is between „one party A‟ to another „party B‟. The three components include:

“an expectation that A will act in ways which are legitimate requirements of B. Second, that A will render some form of account to B. Third, that B may exercise sanctions over A if A fails to conform to B‟s expectations” (Simkins et al., 1998: p.22).

Coleman and Earley (2005) argue that accountability is enacted in different ways and any model can be informed by the four main dimensions of accountability, including political (formal structures and policy issues), market driven (customer or client needs oriented), professional (self-imposed standards) and cultural (fostering new ideas and knowledge to society). Thus, whatever model of accountability is in practice at schools, these four dimensions must be there. This concept resonates not only with the five principles of LfL but also highlights the challenges associated with an effective system of accountability. Furthering their point, Coleman and Earley (2005) argue that decentralization of schools can enhance efficiency in schools. However, it is also clear that in order for systems to succeed, those exercising decision-making „power‟ must also be open to scrutiny and share accountability with others. Accountability, according to them, can be regarded as having „greater freedom at institutional level‟ with a culture that dwells on trust, equity and collaboration. Trust is

98

considered critical in a culture that promotes competition as well as collaboration with sharing of responsibility and accountability. Maintaining this balance between authority, accountability, autonomy and trust could be a real challenge for all practitioners at schools.

Trust in educational settings, although understudied, is an important component of schools. Schools which have a high trust in their environment have lesser need of „monitoring‟ (Pounder et al., 1995). How is that level of trust created? Are school leaders in Pakistan skilled and ready to create this environment? Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2000: p.550) also suggest that “trust is pivotal in the effort to improve education. And yet, trust seems ever more difficult to achieve and maintain”. Scholars argue that this simple notion of having trust in the organizational environment attributes increased collaborative relationship, promotion of risk- tolerant climates, and links to improvement in academic productivity but requires skill and willingness from all (Bryk and Schneider, 2002; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2000). The failure to develop trust results in anxiety, estrangement, and isolation and low quality academic activity (Hoy et al., 2006; Tschannen-Moran, 2004). What are the practices that can promote this culture in schools? Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2000) state:

“… creating an organizational culture of co-operation rather than competition is likely to have a significant impact on the trusting and trustworthy behaviour of participants” (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2000: p.573).

99

Fullan (2006) says that this type of change requires a lot of time, commitment and skill from leaders and all those involved. How are schools really assessed? Which schools are considered good? Is it about leadership and learning or is it about examination results only? Educators across the world are in an unparalleled time, with high-stakes accountability and increasing governmental and public pressure to improve (Galton and MacBeath, 2008; Coburn and Stein, 2010). Ironically, with all the claims made, the „improvement‟ is usually all about exam results. Students and teachers are always overloaded with the pressure of standards, assessments, and requirements in terms of ever increasing demands for standardized assessments. The literature indicates how standardization becomes the enemy of diversity in schools and pressure of examination takes away all the creativity (Hargreaves and Fink, 2006). With this growing exam oriented competition, the ability of schools and all those involved to respond to the diverse students‟ needs in their classes reinforces what Tyack and Cuban (1995) term „the grammar of schooling‟ in secondary schools, with its one teacher and one class system of age-graded curriculum (Hargreaves, 2003). How can this convention be changed in schools? To what extent does LfL develop an environment that responds to contextualised sensitivity as well as to standardisation? What are the effects of this pressure of accountability on teachers and leaders in schools of Pakistan? How does it affect performance of the students in Pakistani schools? The literature does not provide answers to these questions. The over emphasized test results as a major bench mark for performance indicator are seen as one of the root causes of the recruitment and retention crisis at all levels in schools (MacBeath, 2006). However, in reality, is it examination results which are required the most in our world today? Are there any other skills and values that schools should develop among

100

learners? Hart et al. (2004) state that attending to the learning capacity of young students enables teachers to:

“… widen and enrich learning opportunities in such a way as to strengthen and build children‟s desire to engage and their power to further their own learning” (Hart et al. 2004: p.172).

The concept of LfL, in line with Hart et al. (2004) demands important reconstruction and re- conceptualization of the assessment of learning process in schools with a different mind-set as „deciding what to give value to‟ (Rinaldi, 2006). The questions arise whether the present assessment systems really promote leadership and learning in an environment of collaboration and teamwork; and what is the extent of the relationship among children, people, organizations and the wider world, and how it is reflected through the accountability and assessment system in school. LfL promotes a collaborative learning culture within all levels of its wedding cake model. In an ever-changing world, the most powerful kind of human capital is the capacity to collaborate and create new associations and innovative organizational linkages. Collaborating and networking can be highly beneficial in this regard (MacBeath et al., 2009). Does a formal hierarchal structure of schools in different parts of the world and growing competitive environment allow this flexibility to collaborate with other schools which can be competitors in the real world? Networking may be a new theme for schools in Pakistan as no research could be found in this regard. Is the concept of networking to promote learning and capacity building in practice in Pakistani schools? How is accountability shared in networks? These questions highlight areas of potential research in Pakistan.

101 4.6 Summary

The third chapter assesses the challenges that practitioners face in schools and that force them to follow conventional ways of working. Berliner (2005) says that the learners in schools live nested linked with the contextual layers of experience through which they attempt to make sense of their world. Failure to grasp this interconnectivity makes the system ineffective. It is considered that the performance indicators based on quantitative learning outcomes may not be the appropriate way to „measure‟ their effectiveness and success and put any move to transform education in schools through involvement of all of the stakeholders at risk of failure. Students‟ and parents‟ involvement, though highly advocated, lacks any proper structure. Curriculum design, pressure of exams, limited resources and deficient human capital all challenge the extent to which the LfL concept is really practiced and adopted. The ever increasing pressure of exam results and accountability has created problems of retention and sustainability. The chapter highlights many areas of potential research particularly in Pakistan where very scant research is available.