Accountability and school leadership PDF
Preview Accountability and school leadership
jea cover (i).qxd 30/07/2012 13:12 Page 1 ISSN 0957-8234 Volume 50Number 5 2012 Celebrating 50 years1963-2012 Journal of Educational Administration Accountability and school leadership Guest Editor: Karen Seashore Louis www.emeraldinsight.com Journal of Educational ISSN 0957-8234 Volume 50 Administration Number 5 2012 Accountability and school leadership Guest Editor Karen Seashore Louis Access this journal online __________________________ 534 CONTENTS Editorial advisory board ____________________________ 535 Guest editorial_____________________________________ 536 School administration in a changing education sector: the US experience James P.Spillane andAllisonW. Kenney______________________________ 541 At-risk student averse: risk management and accountability Julian Vasquez Heilig,MichelleYoungandAmy Williams________________ 562 Contrasting effects of instructional leadership practices on student learning in a high accountability context MoosungLee, Allan Walkerand Yuk LingChui________________________ 586 The strength of accountability and teachers’ organisational citizenship behaviour EyvindElstad, Knut-Andreas Christophersenand AreTurmo____________ 612 External mandates and instructional leadership: school leaders as mediating agents KarenSeashoreLouisandViviane M.Robinson_______________________ 629 Managing the intersection of internal and external accountability: challenge for urban school leadership in the United States MichaelS. KnappandSusan B. Feldman_____________________________ 666 Bridging accountability obligations, professional values and (perceived) student needs with integrity HeinrichMintrop_________________________________________________ 695 Thisjournalisamemberofand subscribestotheprinciplesofthe CommitteeonPublicationEthics www.emeraldinsight.com/jea.htm Asasubscribertothisjournal,youcanbenefitfrominstant, Structuredabstracts electronicaccesstothistitleviaEmeraldManagementeJournals. Emeraldstructuredabstractsprovideconsistent,clearand Youraccessincludesavarietyoffeaturesthatincreasethevalueof informativesummariesofthecontentofthearticles,allowingfaster yourjournalsubscription. evaluationofpapers. Howtoaccess thisjournal electronically Additional complementaryservices available Ourliberalinstitution-widelicenceallowseveryonewithinyour Whenyouregisteryourjournalsubscriptiononlineyouwillgain institutiontoaccessyourjournalelectronically,makingyour accesstoadditionalresourcesforAuthorsandLibrarians,offering subscriptionmorecost-effective.Ourwebsitehasbeendesignedto keyinformationandsupporttosubscribers.Inaddition,our provideyouwithacomprehensive,simplesystemthatneedsonly dedicatedResearch,TeachingandLearningZonesprovide minimumadministration.AccessisavailableviaIPauthenticationor specialist‘‘Howtoguides’’,casestudies,bookreviews, usernameandpassword. managementinterviewsandkeyreadings. Tobenefitfromelectronicaccesstothisjournal,pleasecontact E-mailalertservices [email protected] Theseservicesallowyoutobekeptuptodatewiththelatest beprovidedtoyou.ShouldyouwishtoaccessviaIP,please additionstothejournalviae-mail,assoonasnewmaterialenters providethesedetailsinyoure-mail.Onceregistrationiscompleted, thedatabase.Furtherinformationabouttheservicesavailablecan yourinstitutionwillhaveinstantaccesstoallarticlesthroughthe befoundatwww.emeraldinsight.com/alerts journal’sTableofContentspageatwww.emeraldinsight.com/ 0957-8234.htmMoreinformationaboutthejournalisalsoavailable EmeraldResearchConnections atwww.emeraldinsight.com/jea.htm Anonlinemeetingplacefortheworld-wideresearchcommunity, offeringanopportunityforresearcherstopresenttheirownworkand Emeraldonlinetrainingservices findotherstoparticipateinfutureprojects,orsimplyshareideas. Visitwww.emeraldinsight.com/helpandtakeanEmeraldonline Registeryourselforsearchourdatabaseofresearchersat tourtohelpyougetthemostfromyoursubscription. www.emeraldinsight.com/connections KeyfeaturesofEmerald electronic journals Choice of access Electronicaccesstothisjournalisavailableviaanumberof Automaticpermissiontomakeupto25copiesofindividual channels.Ourwebsitewww.emeraldinsight.comisthe articles recommendedmeansofelectronicaccess,asitprovidesfully Thisfacilitycanbeusedfortrainingpurposes,coursenotes, searchableandvalueaddedaccesstothecompletecontentofthe seminarsetc.withintheinstitutiononly.Thisonlyappliestoarticles journal.However,youcanalsoaccessandsearchthearticle ofwhichEmeraldownscopyright.Forfurtherdetailsvisit contentofthisjournalthroughthefollowingjournaldelivery www.emeraldinsight.com/copyright services: EBSCOHostElectronicJournalsService Onlinepublishingandarchiving ejournals.ebsco.com Aswellascurrentvolumesofthejournal,youcanalsogainaccess InformaticsJ-Gate topastvolumesontheinternetviaEmeraldManagement eJournals.Youcanbrowseorsearchthesedatabasesforrelevant www.j-gate.informindia.co.in articles. Ingenta www.ingenta.com Keyreadings MinervaElectronicOnlineServices Thisfeatureprovidesabstractsofrelatedarticleschosenbythe www.minerva.at journaleditor,selectedtoprovidereaderswithcurrentawarenessof OCLCFirstSearch interestingarticlesfromotherpublicationsinthefield. www.oclc.org/firstsearch Non-articlecontent SilverLinker Materialinourjournalssuchasproductinformation,industrytrends, www.ovid.com companynews,conferences,etc.isavailableonlineandcanbe SwetsWise accessedbyusers. www.swetswise.com Referencelinking Emerald Customer Support Directlinksfromthejournalarticlereferencestoabstractsofthe mostinfluentialarticlescited.Wherepossible,thislinkistothefull Forcustomersupportandtechnicalhelpcontact: textofthearticle. [email protected] Webhttp://info.emeraldinsight.com/products/ E-mailanarticle subs/customercharter.htm Allowsuserstoe-maillinksonlytorelevantandinterestingarticlesto Tel+44(0)1274785278 anothercomputerforlateruse,referenceorprintingpurposes. Fax+44(0)1274785201 EDITORIALADVISORYBOARD Editorial advisory board KenAvenell KenLeithwood BrisbaneCatholicEducationCentre,Australia UniversityofToronto,Canada IbrahimBajunid JohnMcCormick IntiLaureateUniversity,Malaysia UniversityofWollongong,Australia LesBell JosephMurphy UniversityofLeicester,UK VanderbiltUniversity,USA 535 NarottamBhindi AnthonyH.Normore UniversityofWollongong,Australia CaliforniaLutheranUniversity,USA SusanBon WendyPan GeorgeMasonUniversity,USA NationalTaiwanNormalUniversity,Republicof China CarolCardno UNITECInstituteofTechnology,NewZealand KeithF.Punch UniversityofWesternAustralia,Perth,Australia JudithD.Chapman AustralianCatholicUniversity,Sydney,Australia BrianRoberts UniversityofHull,UKandShenyangNormal PamChristie UniversityofCapeTown,SouthAfrica University,PRChina NeilCranston VivianeRobinson UniversityofTasmania,Australia UniversityofAuckland,NewZealand LarryCuban ZehavaRosenblatt StanfordUniversity,USA UniversityofHaifa,Israel CliveDimmock PamelaSammons NIE-NanyangTechUniversity,Singapore UniversityofOxford,UK StephenDinham KarenSeashoreLouis UniversityofMelbourne,Australia UniversityofMinnesota,USA DeirdreJ.Duncan PeterSleegers AustralianCatholicUniversity,Sydney,Australia UniversityofTwente,TheNetherlands PatrickB.Forsyth JimSpillane UniversityofOklahoma,USA NorthwesternUniversity,USA FrancesFowler JacquelineA.Stefkovich MiamiUniversity,USA PennsylvaniaStateUniversity,USA EllenGoldring CynthiaUline VanderbiltUniversity,USA SanDiegoStateUniversity,USA PeterGronn T.Velayutham CambridgeUniversity,UK UniversityoftheSouthPacific,Fiji AlmaHarris WangHong InstituteofEducation,UniversityofLondon,UK SouthChinaNormalUniversity,China RonHeck CharlesF.Webber UniversityofHawaii-Manoa,USA ThompsonRiversUniversity,Canada OlofJohansson YangXiaoWei UniversityofUmea,Sweden EastChinaNormalUniversity,China GabrieleLakomski UniversityofMelbourne,Australia JournalofEducational Administration Vol.50No.5,2012 p.535 #EmeraldGroupPublishingLimited 0957-8234 JEA Guest editorial 50,5 Special issue on accountabilityand school leadership Thisspecialissueconsistsofacollectionofsevenpapersthatdealwiththeincreasing 536 pressures for school accountability and its effects. The special issue grew out of aroundtableattheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociationin2011,inwhichthree of the paper authors (Mintrop; Knapp and Feldman; and Louis and Robinson) interactedwithapproximately40participantswhoseenthusiasmforthetopicrequired ustomoveintoahallandstealchairsfromlesswell-attendedsessions.Whenweraised the possibility of a special issue to the editors of the Journal of Educational Administration,theynotedthatanotherpaperonthesametopic(SpillaneandKenney) hadbeenpresentedatthe2ndAsianLeadershipRoundtableinBangkok,andthatthey had recently accepted two related papers (Elstad, Christophersen and Turmo; and VasquezHeilig,YoungandWilliams).Aswelookedattheaccumulatingmanuscripts, theeditorsandIfeltthatitwasinsufficientlyinternationalinitsfocus,andwesolicited an additional manuscript (Lee, Walker and Yuk). The final line-up thus consists of an overview essay, four empirical papers from USA, and two from other countries. Threeofthesepapersaremulti-method,twoarepredominantlysurvey-basedandone is based entirelyon case studydata. Althoughthepapersdonotreflectanintegratedframework,togethertheyaddress critical but unansweredquestions: (1) Howdoexternalaccountabilitypoliciesaffectthedevelopmentofschool-based initiativesforchange andimprovement? (2) How do leaders influenceteacher responses to externalaccountabilities? (3) Howdoschoolsdevelopconsensusaroundnormsandvaluesthatsustaintheir efforts at improvement underconditions of increasingexternalpressure? (4) In what ways (if at all) do school leaders reconcile external accountability demands with the school’s internal accountability system and improvement goals? (5) What aresome of the intended and unintended consequences of the growing emphasisonaccountabilityforprofessionalbehaviorsandtheachievementof educationalgoals? All of the papers examine both formal leaders (administrators) and the social and professional context inwhich they work. In particular, the emphasis is on the role of school leaders in interpreting external mandates, including the extent to which they areabletointegratethemwiththeirinternalprioritiesandvaluesinwaysthataffect teachersandstudents.Giventheinvestmentinstandards-basedaccountability-driven reform(andthepublicfaithplacedinthisstrategyforimprovingthequalityofpublic education) the field deserves better answers to questions about the school-level responses to these policies. The collection thus adds insights into a central set of JournalofEducational variables that affect the impact of localleadership on schools’responses to emerging Administration policydefinitionsof the common good. Vol.50No.5,2012 pp.536-540 Each paper focusses on tensions or dilemmas in the accountability movement. rEmeraldGroupPublishingLimited 0957-8234 SpillaneandKenneysetthestage,andaddressallthequestionsposedabovethrougha review of the literature. Most of the research on the effects of the accountability Guest editorial movement has, until recently, emphasized its impact on classroom practices, instruction and student achievement, but they point out that “While these foci make sense, they often ignore other aspects of the school organization, potentially critical to understanding the implementation process of this new genre of education policy” (p. 543). Spillane and Kenney’s essay emphasizes the need to examine how accountability has changed the dynamic of how schools must manage their need to 537 maintainexternallegitimacyintheeyesofthepublic(andparticularlyinthepolitical arena), while at the same time maintaining an internal focus on integrity andvalue- drivenpractices. Thisissueofhowthetensionsimplicitinthequestionsoutlinedaboveareperceived and managed emerges in the six empirical papers aswell: . VasquezHeilig,YoungandWilliams(“At-riskstudentaverse:riskmanagement and accountability”) use a “risk management” framework to analyze how administratorsandteachersinlow-performingandhigh-povertyhighschoolsin Texas respond to several decades of high-stakes accountability. The authors suggest that the risk of “failure” on the state tests were real because they undermined legitimacy, and risk is managed by explicitly undermining perceivedintegrityobjectives(teachingallstudentswell,providingsupportfor immigrantstudentswhomaynotbe“legal”)inorderto“game”thesystemand increase test performance. . Lee, Walker and Yuk (“Contrasting effects of instructional leadership practices on student learning in a high accountability context”) show that when school leadersinHongKongdowhatisasked(closelymonitortheclassroomworkof teachers),their roleaspositiveinstructionalleadersisundermined.Inaddition, theuseofclosesupervisionof teachers(whichisincreasinglyemphasizedasa policyinanumberofcountries)hasanegativeimpactonstudents’engagement with school, presumably because teachers own engagement and sense of professionalism is undermined. . Elstad, Christophersen and Turmo’s investigation of three different accountability systems in Norway (“The strength of accountability and teachers’ organizational citizenship behaviour”) suggests a different problem inmanagingexternallegitimacyandinternalintegrity.Inthissetting,adultsin schoolsettingsareexpectedtoengageinawidevarietyofcitizenshipbehaviors, which are largely voluntary efforts directed toward improving the culture and performance of the school. Their findings suggest that there is a positive relationship between higher-stakes accountability and stronger leadership among the formal leaders/higher levels of organizational citizenship behavior. Thus, their finding is that external legitimacy/accountability and internal integritymaybe,atleastintheirsetting,lessproblematicthaneithertheHong Kongor Texas data suggest. . Louis and Robinson’s analysis of US elementary schools (“External mandates and instructional leadership: principals as mediating agents”) focusses on the way in which accountability may affect the legitimacy of the formal school leader. Their data suggest that administrators who have more questions about the legitimacy and value of external accountability initiatives from either thestateordistrictarelesslikelytobeviewedasinstructionalleadersbytheirstaff. JEA Highinstructionalleadership,intheirqualitativedata,isassociatedwiththecapacity 50,5 of school leaders to negotiate perceived tensions between external legitimacy demandsandtheneedforinternalautonomyinwaysthatbalancethetwo. . Knapp and Feldman (“Managing the intersection of internal and external accountability:challengeforurbanschoolleadershipintheUnitedStates”)also examine the role of principals in mediating policy messages and integrating 538 themintoaninternalschoolagenda.Theiranalysisof15urbanschoolssuggests that principals in these settings were generally successful in creating an environment that focusses on professional responsibilities while establishing structures that reflected external accountability demands. Principals and staff memberscreatedmorereciprocalschoolculturesandmutualaccountabilitythat seemedtoincreasebothleaders’andstaffcapacitiestopursuehighexpectations. . TheissueoflegitimacyandintegrityiscentraltoMintrop’scontribution(“Bridging accountabilityobligations,professionalvalues,and(perceived)studentneedswith integrity”).Usingin-depthdatafromnineCaliforniaschools,heisabletoshowthat wheregoalintegrityishigh,responsivenesstoexternalaccountability(andsuccess inmeetingaccountabilitystandards)wasalsohigher.Inschoolswhereprincipals operatedasconduitsofaccountabilitypressureswithoutintegrativenarrativesthat includedintegrity,defensivenessandanadversarialclimatetendedtoensue. While these papers emerge from studies in different accountability contexts (even within the USA there is considerable variation in accountability policies between states), there are thus, common themes in response to the questions outlined above. First, external accountability policies have an effect on internal school leadership in allofthecontexts,buthavebothpositive andnegative effectsonthedevelopmentof acoherentinternalstoryaboutimprovement.Second,wherepositiveeffectsoninternal cohesiveness and a focus on improving outcomes for students are observed, there is evidence of an active role for school leaders in creating coherence. Third, but less conclusively, the papers point to avarietyof ways inwhich leadership effects occur, butingeneraltheypointtocoherencearoundgoals,asenseofaninternal“story”about schoolimprovement,andintegrityinaddressingbothexternaldemandsandinternal conditions. The story of how this is done differs between the papers, suggesting an additionalneedtostudyhowleadership,bothfromindividualsandthatwhichismore broadlydistributed among the professional staff, contribute to managing the tension outlinedin Spillane and Kenney’s initial paper. One additional cross-cutting theme in the papers is the degree to which external accountabilitypolicies haveboththe anticipatedeffect ofincreasing studentlearning andunintendedeffectsofvariouskinds.Theissueofunintendedeffectsisraisedmost explicitly by Vasquez Heilig, Young and Williams (At-risk student averse: risk managementandaccountability),whopointtomanyunintendednegativeeffectsofthe Texasaccountabilitysystemonschoolswithlargenumbersofat-riskolderadolescent students. However, scattered less explicitly through the other empirical papers is evidence that external accountability policies have a wide variety of unanticipated effects, some that are harmful to students or the school’s internal adult culture, but othersthathaveunanticipatedpositiveeffects.Withoutinterventionbyschoolleaders, the papers suggest that the anticipated positive consequences may be less likely to occur(oroccuronlyin some places),while theopportunities for unintendednegative consequencestoemergeareincreased.TableIisnotintendedtobecomprehensive,but Guest editorial “Debatable,”variableor “Positive”effects mixedeffects “Negative”effects Unintended Increaseindistrict Focuson“bubblekids” Loopholes/“gaming” cohesivenessandreform (VasquezHeilig,Youngand inauthenticcompliance (LouisandRobinson) Williams)vseducational (VasquezHeilig,Youngand IncreaseinOCB(Elstad, “triage”andpluralism Williams;Louisand 539 Christophersonand (Mintrop) Robinson) Turmo) Increasingsystem Teachersviewstudentsas Focusoninternal complexity(VasquezHeilig) liabilities(VasquezHeilig, coherencewithinthe vsefforttosimplify YoungandWilliams) school(Knappand inconsistentwiththereality “Fearfulness”and Feldman) ofchildren’sneeds unwillingnesstotakerisks (Mintrop) (VasquezHeilig,Youngand Moralpurposesare Williams;Louisand challenged(VasquezHeilig, Robinson;Mintrop) YoungandWilliams)vs Disruptionofstudent- supported(Mintrop) teacherrelationship(Lee, WalkerandYuk;Mintrop) Intended Focussingteacherson “Highreliability “Generallyanemptycell learning;internal achievement”vsrisk [y].policiesarenot coherencewithin management(Vasquez typicallyintendedtomake schools(Mintrop) Heilig,YoungandWilliams) schoolsworse” Increasingcollective Weakdistributionof responsibility,especially pressure–focussedonlow- in“highrisk”schools performingschools (KnappandFeldman) (VasquezHeilig,Youngand Increasingleaderfocus Williams)orlow- oncoreschoolactivities performingteachers andfunctions (Lee,WalkerandYuk) Makinginequitable TableI. practicesandoutcomes Effectsofaccountability visiblecreatesmoral policies(asimplemented) dissonance(Mintrop) onleadership onlytodrawthereader’sattentiontothefactthattheempiricalpapersconsistentlypay attentiontotheissueofintendedandunintendedpolicyconsequences.Acarefulread will find additional implications for the effects of policy on leadership and schools which,collectively,pointtotheneedfor moreinformationaboutthetypes,rangeand incidenceof policyeffects. Insum,thisspecialissueshedssomelightontheoftendebatedbutstillambiguous question of how school-based leaders affect the implementation of accountability systems “on the ground.” Even though accountability systems are intended to issue clear,simple,authoritativeandincontrovertibleperformancedemandsforschools,the studies show that local leaders’ interpretations of these demands strongly shape schools’ internal responses. The alternatives mechanisms explored in these papers include: . perceiving the system asenablingor,alternatively,constraining; . exploring vs ignoring contradictions between professional values and external equityexpectations; and JEA . forgingasenseofvalueintegritythatmergesinternalstandardsofgoodpractice 50,5 with external system tools (e.g.use of performance data). Whilethisspecialissue,likemost,raisesasmanyquestionsasitanswers,asagroup thepapersshedconsiderablelightontheseissues,particularlyonhowschoolsareable to manage a tension between internal and external accountabilities that continue to troublethe profession. 540 KarenSeashore Louis Guest Editor Thecurrentissueandfulltextarchiveofthisjournalisavailableat www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm School administration in a School administration changing education sector: the US experience 541 James P. Spillane and Allison W. Kenney School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University, Evanston, Received25October2011 Illinois, USA Revised21February2012 Accepted18April2012 Abstract Purpose–Research,spanninghalfacentury,pointstothecriticalroleofschooladministrationandto thesuccessfulimplementationofUSgovernmentpoliciesandprograms.Inpartthesefindingsreflect thetimesandaUSeducationalgovernancesystemcharacterizedbylocalcontrol,aconstitutionally- constrainedfederalgovernment,resource-poorstategovernments,andanoverallsystemofsegment arrangementsforgoverningeducation.However,theUSeducationpolicyenvironmenthaschanged dramaticallyoverthepastseveraldecades,withstandardsandhighstakesaccountabilitybecoming commonplace. The purpose of this paper is to examine the entailments of shifts in the policy environmentforschooladministrativepractice,focusingonhowschoolleadersmanageinthemiddle betweenthisshiftingexternalpolicyenvironmentandclassroomteachers. Design/methodology/approach–Thepaper’sfocusisonhowschooladministrationmanagesthe dualorganizationalimperativesoflegitimacyandintegrityinachanginginstitutionalenvironment. Thispaperisanessayinwhichtheauthorsreflectontheentailmentsofshiftsintheeducationsector forschooladministrationoverthepastquartercenturyintheUSA. Findings–Whileconsiderablechangeforschooladministrativepracticeissuggested,theauthors arguethatorganizationallegitimacyandorganizationalintegrityarestillcentralconcernsforschool leaders. Originality/value – Although the paper’s account is based entirely on the US education sector, severalaspectsoftheframingmayberelevantinothercountries. Keywords UnitedStatesofAmerica,Educationaladministration,Schools,Governmentpolicy, Leadership,Administration Papertype Researchpaper Overseveraldecades,local,state,andfederalpolicymakersintheUSAhavedirected theirattentionandpolicyinitiativesonclassroomteaching,specifyingwhatteachers should teach, in some cases how they should teach, and acceptable levels of student achievement. They have done so by mobilizing policy instruments – rewards and sanctions – for compliance with externally imposed performance standards. As a result of the dramatic changein the institutionalenvironmentof US schools over the last25years,curriculumstandardsandtest-basedaccountabilityhavebecomestaples, perhaps even taken for granted, in the educational sector. Policy makers are not the only ones implicated in this transformation. Extra-system agents and agencies (e.g. comprehensive school reform designs, charter school networks, philanthropic institutions) have also played a prominent role, albeit with government support and incentives, in transforming the American education sector. These shifts in the institutionalenvironmentofAmerica’sschoolsrepresentaconsiderabledeparturefor JournalofEducational business asusualinsideschools. Administration Though commentators often associated the transformation with the federal Vol.50No.5,2012 pp.541-561 “No Child Left Behind” (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), 2001) legislation, rEmeraldGroupPublishingLimited 0957-8234 these institutional shifts pre-date NCLB, as several state and local governments DOI10.1108/09578231211249817
The list of books you might like
