ERIC EJ990979: Antecedents of Teachers Fostering Effort within Two Different Management Regimes: An Assessment-Based Accountability Regime and Regime without External Pressure on Results

2012·0.81 MB·English

by  ERIC

International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership, December 3, 2012. Volume 7, Number 6. 1
ANTECEDENTS OF TEACHERS FOSTERING EFFORT WITHIN TWO DIFFERENT
MANAGEMENT REGIMES: AN ASSESSMENT-BASED ACCOUNTABILITY REGIME
AND REGIME WITHOUT EXTERNAL PRESSURE ON RESULTS
KNUT-ANDREAS CHRISTOPHERSEN
University of Oslo
EYVIND ELSTAD
University of Oslo
ARE TURMO
University of Oslo
This article focuses on the comparison of organizational antecedents of teachers' fostering of students' effort in two quite different account-
ability regimes: one management regime with an external-accountability system and one with no external accountability devices. The
methodology involves cross-sectional surveys from two different management systems: (1) teachers working under assessment-based ac-
countability (N = 236) and (2) folk–high school teachers who work without tests and examinations and, thereby, without external account-
ability devices (N = 366). The purpose of the study is to estimate the path coefficients in structural equation modeling in the two regimes
and compare the significance of relationships between concepts in the structural models. Through this comparison, inferences are drawn
suggesting how accountability repercussions and other leadership organizational antecedents may influence teachers' fostering of students'
efforts and how qualitative aspects among school professionals may influence the fostering of effort. Implications for practice and direc-
tions for future research are discussed.

Christopherson, K, Elstad, E, & Turmo, A. (2012). Antecedents of teachers fostering effort within two different management regimes: an
assessment-based accountability regime and regime without external pressure on results. International Journal of Education Policy and
Leadership 7(6). Retrieved from www.ijepl.org.
Introduction cance of organizational antecedents of fostering of
effort in two different contexts of educational man-
Assessment-based school accountability has consider- agement: one management regime with significant
able appeal currently, and such systems are used external accountability and another without external
widely throughout the world. The strength of ac- accountability devices.
countability may influence student achievement (Car- Why is it important to focus on teachers' fostering
noy & Loeb, 2002; Hanushek & Raymond, 2005); of student effort? "Successful learning is a function of
however, other factors may also be important (de the worthwhileness and clarity of the learning inten-
Wolf & Janssens, 2007). One such important con- tions, the specifications" (Hattie, 2009, p.199).
tributor to student learning is the teacher (Hattie, Teachers need to set challenging learning intentions
2009). and tasks, and high standards for the students' effort,
In this article, the focus is on the link between the as effort is of vital importance for successful academic
system of accountability and teachers' fostering of achievement. Teachers may set appropriate goals and
student effort. This is done by comparing the signifi- then structure learning opportunities so that the stu-
Antecedents of teachers’ fostering effort within two different management regimes 2
dents can reach these goals. The presence of chal- Many countries' educational systems have seen the
lenging learning intentions expressed by the teacher is introduction of assessment-based accountability poli-
termed "the fostering of effort" (Hattie, 2009, p.34). cies, each with different and unique features (de Wolf
This mechanism is such that "setting learning inten- & Janssens, 2007).
tions invoke a 'discrepancy-creative process,' such In comparison with other countries, the use of
that there is a gap between present performances and accountability devices in Norway is still limited. Fur-
where you wish to be" (Hattie, 2009, p.199). Norwe- ther, in terms of applying accountability devices in
gian education authorities have emphasized that education, Norway has been a latecomer (Elstad,
teachers should foster students' efforts, and have Nortvedt & Turmo, 2009). The mediocre results
higher professional ambitions as a basis for teaching achieved in the Programme for International Student
(White paper, 2003–04). To reinforce more fostering assessment (PISA) gave legitimacy to a new direction
of effort, more external pressure put on school prin- for Norwegian education policy (White Paper, 2003-
cipals was established via assessment-based account- 04). A performance management system called Man-
ability. This systemic shift towards performance con- agement by Objectives, Rules and Control has been
trolled by the use of measurements (exams, and later, implemented by the national government. Through a
national tests and school performance indicators) has legislative change, the responsibility for educational
been established in a few municipalities and counties. quality has been placed on school governors. To a
varying degree, complementary local accountability
The context systems bridging the gap between school governors
and schools have been set up. Local assurance sys-
Scholars often study extreme cases because they may tems in Norwegian education vary greatly, even
reveal the essential features of phenomena. In this though the goals are generally similar.
article, two extreme examples at opposite ends of the In the following, the core aspects of two manage-
accountability significance scale in Norway are com- ment systems are explained: (1) management of sec-
pared. In addition, differences in the pathways show- ondary schools in the Norwegian capital of Oslo; Oslo
ing the organizational antecedents of the fostering of is the municipality that has gone furthest in Norway
effort are identified. The two different management in terms of accountability devices (Elstad, Nortvedt &
systems in question are these: (1) teachers working Turmo, 2009); and (2) management of folk high
under strong assessment-based accountability in a schools where teachers work without tests and ex-
Norwegian city municipality (the capital, Oslo), and aminations, and, thereby, without external account-
(2) Norwegian folk–high school teachers who work ability devices. By comparing the organizational ante-
completely without tests and examinations, and, cedents of the fostering of effort in these two extreme
thereby, without any external accountability devices. instances, conclusions about the characteristics of the
Internationally compared, the system in Oslo may be two management systems are drawn.
characterized as accountability with moderate reper-
cussion (Elstad, Nortvedt, & Turmo, 2009). How- A local accountability system for
ever, it also has to be stressed that the folk high
schools in Oslo
schools in Norway do not operate without external
pressure. Almost all schools have external pressures
The responsibility for developing quality assurance
(community perceptions, public relations, and repu-
systems in primary and secondary schools in Norway
tations at the very least).
has been delegated to school governors employed at
Over the past decade, the management of the edu-
municipalities and counties, which is meant to ensure
cation sector in Norway and many other countries has
that the national regulations are upheld (White Paper,
changed significantly (Telhaug, Medias, & Aasen,
2007–08). The education agency of the City of Oslo
2006). The wave of reforms known as New Public
has established a result-oriented external accountabil-
Management, along with accountability systems, has
ity system that makes each school principal responsi-
taken effect over the educational systems of several
ble for attaining specific statistical targets in terms of
European countries (Christensen & Lægreid, 2001).
the school's activity. The education agency of the City
The theoretical basis for the design of external ac-
of Oslo is responsible for primary and secondary edu-
countability systems rests on the premise that school
cation under the leadership of the school governors.
employees need external motivation and incentives in
These governors report to the local minister of educa-
order to work effectively (Carnoy & Loeb, 2002).
tion in Oslo (a politician). School principals report to
Knut-Andreas Christophersen, Eyvind Elstad, and Are Turmo 3
school governors positioned in the hierarchical of school. At a time when typical result-based man-
structure of the agency. The school governors are agement by educational authorities is a feature of
members of a governing body for the whole city of most aspects of education in Norway, folk high
Oslo. Quality assurance systems have been estab- schools still stand out as a "free zone."
lished that make the principal responsible for results External accountability devices and visions of
achieved and allocate to him or her an annual grade- commands via transformational leadership are at odds
and result-linked bonus. The intention is that the with the core values inherent in the FHS. The FHS
quality assurance systems increase the quality of originates in Grundtvig's concept of students meeting
teachers and principals. Quality teachers need to "the living word" in mutual teaching and conversation
know the subject matter they are teaching and be ef- and of the concrete formation of student participation
fective pedagogues. Principals need to know how to (Kulich, 2002). This experience is intended to lay a
manage schools effectively. The work of teachers in foundation for the students' lifelong, voluntary, and
Oslo has been heavily affected by accountability de- self-motivated learning. The moral purposes inherent
vices such as tests, checks on disparities between in Grundtvig's concept of FHS were (1) school for
teacher-allocated grades, and exam results (The City life, (2) a vision of historical-poetical myths, folk cul-
of Oslo Audit, 2009). ture, and cultural identity, and (3) a residential school
Interviews with Norwegian school principals (El- for young adults. Thus, social life at school is seen as
stad, 2009) created the impression that principals promoting social responsibility and civic virtues (Ku-
who pass on to the teachers the school governors' ex- lich, 2002).
pectations of results improvements for which they In the decades that FHSs have existed, the sub-
themselves have been given responsibility. They use stance of the FHS has also changed somewhat. At pre-
accountability tools (through average class results in sent, outdoor pursuits, sports, media studies, music,
tests, exams, etc.) as leadership devices: "I am able to acting, and other topics make up the core subjects.
monitor learning in the various grades in a completely Core values that direct the teaching processes include
new way" (Elstad, 2009, p. 180). Up to a certain sustainable development, international solidarity, and
point, principals attempt to absorb some of the pres- reciprocal intercultural understanding. Moral men-
sure put on teachers. For instance: "I cannot put pres- toring is emphasized, and the "spirit" of FHSs—
sure on the lower levels in the hierarchy. If I do so teacher commitment and teacher obligation—is a vital
then things get unhealthy around here" (loc. cit.). aspect of the rhetoric of FHS writings. Forty-one per-
cent of Norwegian folk high schools have a Christian
Folk high schools as a free zone identity, in which Christianity is an element in the
teaching and where teachers must have a Christian
The folk high school (FHS) is a Nordic contribution faith. The degree of teacher commitment is expected
to European education and is a unique approach to to have a strong effect on teacher behavior.
non-university adult education. The FHS students Leaders of FHSs have maintained that the distinc-
vary in age, but many students are in the 18–19 age tive elements of the age period before exams and tests
group (it is quite typical to take one year in FHS after have become a means of product control for the proc-
high school). An FHS does not grant academic de- esses of the educational institutions. Therefore, FHSs
grees, but the schooling emphasizes mutual teaching stand as a clear contrast to the way in which Oslo
and conversation, and concrete formation of student schools are run.
participation. This endeavor has laid the ground for
initiatives in favor of sustainable lifelong learning. Theoretical Model
The core values of the FHS are in opposition to the
current emphasis on tests and clearly defined teacher The fostering of effort can derive from external pres-
roles that have otherwise been prevalent in education sure via external accountability systems. The external
governance in recent years. The notion of humanistic- pressure "can function as an important stimulus for
oriented self-formation of the individual (Knutas & school principals and teachers to ensure that their
Solhaug, 2010) characterizes an FHS. Since there are school 'scores as well as possible' under the threat of
no exams in an FHS, it is simply not possible to con- 'naming and shaming' in the event of sub-standard
trol learning outcomes using the result-based control scores, and the possible effects of such public infor-
carried out in other types of educational establish- mation on choices made by pupils and parents" (de
ment without changing the whole nature of this kind Wolf & Janssens, 2007, p. 381). The pressure on the
Antecedents of teachers’ fostering effort within two different management regimes 4
principal is thus passed on internally throughout the sequence of this commitment is the fostering of stu-
school to the teachers. Norwegian education authori- dent effort in the teaching (LT).
ties have emphasized that teachers should foster stu- Accountability devices can improve student per-
dents' efforts (i.e., apply more academic pressure in formance through exerting greater external pressure,
teaching, in Norwegian: "trykk i opplæringen"), and giving principals incentives to work more effectively
have higher professional ambitions as a basis for and providing incentives to apply result-oriented
teaching (White Paper, 2003–04). The purpose of leadership (Hanushek & Raymond, 2005). Account-
fostering of effort is to affect pupil decisions in a posi- ability mechanisms may, therefore, give teachers in-
tive manner via the strategic behavior of the teachers. centives to increase the fostering of student effort
The teacher may guide the pupil to higher academic (which requires teachers to work harder), potentially
ambitions and higher learning intensity, and fostering leading to better student performance. However, this
of effort works through persuasion, demands, and policy may also backfire (Berryhill, Linney, &
other achievement-influencing behaviors. The central Fromewick, 2009). Examples include: through artifi-
rationale behind the policy focus on teachers' foster- cially inflating grades, targeting instruction to near-
ing of effort is to raise pupil learning outcomes in core failing pupils (Reback, 2008), classifying more pupils
subjects. as special needs (Jacob, 2005) or as disabled (Heilig
Theoretically, the significance of accountability & Darling-Hammond, 2008), shifting the amount of
repercussions and other leadership organizational time devoted to test subjects (Sturman, 2003), cheat-
antecedents can influence the teachers' fostering of ing by teachers on standardized tests (Jacob & Levitt,
effort (the dependent variable). Transformational 2003), altering the test-taking pool by strategically
leadership (CL) and principal's relationship building assigning suspensions to low-performing pupils near
(PT) are organizational antecedents in the model. So- the test-taking period (Figlio, 2006), and so forth.
cial exchange, economic exchange, and commitment Figure 1 (next page) presents the theoretical
represent independent variables. model tested in this study, which explores what can
The core theoretical concept is exchange. The ori- explain the fostering of effort of (a) FHS teachers and
gin of the concept of exchange lies in sociological (b) Oslo teachers. Analytical studies (Day et al., 2009;
theories of the 1950s—for instance, Merton's theory Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008) show interesting
on role set (1957) and Blau's social exchange theory results on the influences of leadership. A leader's ar-
(Blau, 1986), which emphasizes how the distribution ticulation of strategic declarations (transformational
of power (role set) influences the structure of ex- leadership) can influence teachers by affecting their
changes. This strand suggests that perceptions of so- expectations (Bass, 1985). When a principal influ-
cial exchange may be an important determinant of ences the choices of a teacher via his or her percep-
employee behavior. Much human behavior is guided tion of conditional consequences (i.e., economic ex-
by considerations of exchange: "social exchange may change), then this kind of leadership works by shift-
reflect any behavior oriented to socially mediated ing the expectations of the teachers.
goals" (Blau, 1986, p. 5). Shore et al. (2006) make a Among the Oslo schools, the management system
distinction between economic exchange (EE) and so- is based on assessment accountability, and as the sig-
cial exchange (SE). Social exchange involves a series nificance of repercussions (from governing body to
of interactions that generate obligations to reciprocate school) is so strong, CL plays a significant role in the
(socio-emotional aspects of the employment relation- internal processes of the school (i.e., in the question
ship), while economic exchange involves more nar- of how external pressure is transformed into commu-
row perceptions of exchange. "Economic exchanges nication and interaction between school profession-
do not imply long-term or open-ended and diffuse als). The hypothesis is that the pathway
obligations, but rather the emphasis is on economic CL→SE→CO→LT is important in terms of explain-
agreements such as pay for performance" (Shore et ing the organizational antecedents of the fostering
al., 2006). The perception of exchange may or may effort in Oslo schools. CL may also be persuasive and
not energize the teacher's organizational commitment involve feelings of obligation measured as SE. In such
(CO). Organizational commitment is "the relative cases, the principal plays on reciprocal feelings ("we
strength of an individual's identification with and in- are all in the same boat") when building relationships:
volvement in a particular organization" (Mowday, Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership influ-
Steers, & Porter, 1979, p. 226). The behavioral con- ences social exchanges within the principal-teacher
Knut-Andreas Christophersen, Eyvind Elstad, and Are Turmo 5
Figure 1. Hypothesised models of proposed relationships among variables in (a) schools working under
assessment-based accountability and (b) schools who work without tests and examinations and,
thereby, without external accountability devices. 0 denotes no influence, + denotes positive influence,
and ++ denotes extra-positive influence.
role set, which further catalyzes teacher commitment the principal-teacher role set in a way that catalyzes
and the fostering of effort. fostering effort.
The expectations in terms of CL→EE→CO as a As far as FHSs are concerned, expectations are
pathway are more uncertain since EE does not appear similar to those expressed for Oslo schools in Hy-
to have a particular influence on work quality (Kuvaas pothesis 1. CL is a relatively absent element in the
& Dysvik, 2009). An exploratory question is how CL, FHS culture and no identifiable pathway for either
induced by external pressure, influences EE within CL→SE→CO→LT or CL→EE→CO→LT is posited.
Antecedents of teachers’ fostering effort within two different management regimes 6
Principal, teachers, and students have distinct sets Methods
of role relationships. Trustworthiness is seen as a core
feature of the social organization of schools (Coleman,
Sample and procedures
1990). Trust or lack of trust is forged when teachers
discern the intentions of other teachers' actions and Two separate electronic questionnaire surveys were
their leaders' actions. Trust discernments in the carried out in 2009 and 2010. The surveys were dis-
teacher role set are respect, competence, personal re- tributed via e-mail and nonresponsive teachers were
gard for others, and integrity (Bryk & Schneider, reminded at least once. The surveys include the fol-
2002, p. 23). Trust may take root in the teachers' be- lowing groups of teachers:
liefs regarding commitment to the purposes of school- • All 18 schools participating in the "Leading, pri-
ing and may grow or unravel over time through the oritizing and organizing: School development by
mutual interaction of principals and teachers. focusing on learning results and teaching prac-
The principal-teacher relationship is important for tices in science" project in Oslo municipality were
developing and sustaining relational trust. This "rela- invited to take part in a teacher survey. Eleven
tional trust lubricates the necessary social exchanges schools responded positively to this invitation.
among school professionals" (Bryk & Schneider 2002, These schools are located in areas of differing
p. 123). An employee's perception of social exchange socio-economic composition (eastern and western
involves trust, mutual "investments," a long-term ori- parts) within the Norwegian capital, Oslo. Seven
entation, and obligations between the employee and are lower-secondary schools (years 8–10), three
the organization. With economic exchange, transac- are higher secondary schools (years 11–13).
tions between parties represent discrete and more • A survey was distributed to all teachers working
short-term-oriented interactions (Shore et al., 2006, in Norwegian folk high schools, based on a regis-
p. 839). ter held by The Council of Norwegian Folk High
A principal may exert a key role in developing and Schools.
sustaining relational trust among school professionals Table 1 shows the number of participating teach-
(Bryk & Schneider, 2002, p. 137): ers and the response rates in the two surveys. The
Hypothesis 2: Relational trust between principal response rates are within the range typically found in
and teachers (also named principal-teacher relation- surveys of teachers.
ship) influences social exchanges within the principal-
teacher role set, which further catalyzes the fostering Table 1. The number of participants and the response
of effort among school professionals within both Oslo rates in the three surveys.
schools and FHS.
Social exchange theory emphasizes personal asso-
Survey N Response rate
ciations on the part of teachers and of students:
Secondary 236 54%
Hypothesis 3: Social exchange and economic ex-
teachers
change are distinct concepts as measured among
teachers. Folk high school 366 56%
A significant attribute of teaching cultures under teachers
natural conditions is an obligation to carry out work
of high quality with children and youths. This per-
formance is grounded in the moral purpose behind Table 2 (next page) shows selected background
choosing to be a teacher. This characteristic is associ- characteristics of the teachers in the two samples. The
ated with the concept of teacher commitment. Since majority of the secondary teachers (Oslo) are female,
the "spirit" of the FHS and the personal commitment while in the folk high school teachers (FHS) sample,
of teachers are so prominent in descriptions of the three out of five teachers are male. Furthermore, the
FHS teachers are clearly younger than the teachers in
FHS, the pathway teacher CO → LT appears stronger
the two other samples. Only five percent of the FHS
among FHS teachers than among Oslo teachers.
teachers are above 60 years old. Finally, the Oslo
Hypothesis 4: Teacher commitment is an inde-
sample shows by far the largest proportion of teachers
pendent variable between managerial factors.
with a master's degree. Only one in four FHS teachers
Hypothesis 5: The independent effect of com-
has a higher education with duration of two to three
mitment on learning is stronger among FHS teachers
years. The differences between the two groups are a
than among Oslo teachers.
Knut-Andreas Christophersen, Eyvind Elstad, and Are Turmo 7
consequence of systematic selection effect in the dis- Analysis
tribution of teachers between the Oslo schools and
the FHSs. Theoretical considerations are the point of departure
for the item selection and repeated confirmatory fac-
Measurement instruments tor analysis (CFA) is used to identify the best indica-
tors for the different constructs. The assessments are
Measurement instruments previously reported in the based on the p value for the χ2-statistic, root mean
literature (mainly by Bryk & Schneider, 2002) are square error of approximation (RMSEA), goodness-of-
adapted and translated into the Norwegian language. fit index (GFI), and comparative fit index (CFI). The
In the surveys, teachers respond to items on a 7-point standard criteria p > .05, GFI and CFI >.95, and
Likert-type scale between the categories 1= "Strongly RMSEA < .05 are used for good fit and the criteria p >
disagree" and 7= "Strongly agree," where 4 represents .05, GFI and CFI >.90, and RMSEA < .08, for accept-
a neutral mid-point. able fit between the model and the data (Kline 2005;
Blunch, 2008). Items that do not meet these criteria
Dependent variable are omitted. Three items for each construct are used
to put the latent variable into effect. In addition,
The statements offered to the teachers to measure LT Cronbach's alpha is above .70 for all these scales
include: "I set high standards for student perform- based on three items each. The internal consistency is
ance," "I push the students so that they perform bet- considered acceptable. The CFA analysis is conducted
ter," and "I make sure that the students are always using AMOS 18 and SPSS a8 for Cronbach's alpha.
confronted with challenges." The structural model is assessed in the same way
as the measurement model using AMOS 18. Accord-
Independent variables ing the values RMSEA = .042, p < .000, GFI = .965,
and CFI = .977, the structure model provides an ac-
Six items developed by Shore et al. (2006) are used to
ceptable fit to the data.
measure SE and EE (three items each). Sample items
included: "My relationship with my organization is Table 2. Background characteristics of the teachers in the
strictly an economic one: I work and they pay me" three samples (%).
(EE) and "I try to look out for the best interests of the
Oslo FHS
organization because I can rely on my organization to N=236 N=366
take care of me" (SE). CO (Bryk & Schneider, 2002) Gender
was used as an independent variable between the ex- Female 64 41
Male 36 59
change concepts and the fostering of effort. One sam-
Age
ple item for CO is: "I feel loyalty to this school."
< 25 years 0 2
Bryk and Schneider's (2002) principal-teacher re-
25-29 years 14 15
lationship (PT) construct is used. Sample items are:
30-39 years 31 31
"In this school it is OK to discuss feelings, concerns, 40-49 years 15 27
and frustrations with the school's leadership" and 50-59 years 27 21
"The principal expresses a personal interest in teacher >60 years 14 5
professional development." Bass (1985) used the term Level of education
2-3 years higher education 3 27
"transformational leadership," which reflects a princi-
4-5 years higher education, bache- 60 48
pal's influence on teachers. A new political rhetoric of
lor level
transformational leadership uses the terms "powerful"
Master's degree 31 14
or "clear" leadership. In the Norwegian debate, pow- Other/not specified 6 11
erful leadership (CL) means that principals put more
direct pressure on teachers. Three items related to
Results
transformation leadership are adapted to a school
context. One sample for CL is: "Communication with
The results from the structure model are summarized
the management helps me to understand what is ex-
as follows (see Figures 2, next page, and 3, pg. 9). All
pected of me in order that the school can achieve its
the fit indices (RMSEA, CFI, and GFI) indicate ac-
goals."
ceptable fit. The chi-square statistics do not quite
support this conclusion; however, chi-square statistics
Antecedents of teachers’ fostering effort within two different management regimes 8
are heavily influenced by sample size and should Oslo schools. The results further indicate that trans-
count less in the conclusion than the other fit indices. formational leadership has positive effects on both
In both instances, it was pathway social exchange (.33) and economic exchange (.19) in
PT→SE→CO→LT that was the most significant in the Oslo sample, while no corresponding positive
explaining organizational antecedents of the fostering effects are established in the FHS sample. The latter is
of student effort. This is not surprising for the FHS, not surprising, because transformational leadership
but is somewhat surprising in the case of the Oslo has no clear tradition within the FHS. There are also
schools. A possible interpretation is that the quality of no external management systems to back up the
relationships between the principal and the teachers communication of goals for statistical targets within
is the most significant prerequisite quality-ensuring the institution. Other than simple completion of the
processes in typical "schools." If this is the case, it course, there are no result-based statistics within the
indicates a limitation of New Public Management FHS. The influence of the leadership occurs princi-
techniques, or at least a complementary quality for pally through relationship building.
human relationships, which a management system It is also not surprising that CL→SE→CO→LT is
should take into account. Furthermore, the results a fairly prominent pathway in the Oslo school. In
show that the relationship between teacher commit- contrast, CL→EE→CO→LT is a much weaker path-
ment and fostering of effort is strongest in the Oslo way. Furthermore, in both samples, strong positive
sample (.71) (followed by FHS at .38). This is surpris- relations between transformational leadership and
ing because "spirit" and moral calling are more positive principal-teacher relationships, and between
prominent attributes in descriptions of FHS than of principal-teacher relationships and social exchange,
Figure 2. School teachers in Oslo (n = 236)
Knut-Andreas Christophersen, Eyvind Elstad, and Are Turmo 9
Figure 3. Folk high school teachers
are established. In both samples, principal-teacher assessment-based accountability and school profes-
relationships are negatively related to economic ex- sionals who work without tests and examinations
change: the poorer the relationship, the higher the (and, therefore, without accountability devices). The
teacher emphasis on economic exchange. Finally, in present study develops structural equation models to
all samples, economic exchange is negatively related examine the factors that affect the fostering of effort
to commitment. This is seen most strongly in the FHS within the two management systems. Structural equa-
sample (see Tables 3 and 4, next page). tion modeling has been seen as a useful technique for
specifying, estimating, and testing hypothesized mod-
Discussion els describing asserted causal relations among vari-
ables (Kline, 2005); thus, it is used in the current
The management systems for Oslo schools and for study to explore leadership organizational antece-
FHSs represent the extreme ends of a scale in Norway dents and the nature of exchanges between parties in
running from rather high accountability significance the organization of teachers' work and to examine the
to almost no accountability significance. The purpose relative effect of these aspects on the teachers' foster-
of the present study is to explore the link between the ing of student effort. By focusing on organizational
significance of accountability and teachers' fostering antecedents to exchange perceptions, the current
of student effort, among teachers working under study explores factors that lead to the fostering of ef-
Antecedents of teachers’ fostering effort within two different management regimes 10
Table 3. Estimated Effect Components for the Structural Model with Fostering of Effort as Dependent Variable, Oslo sam-
ple (N = 236)
Direct Indirect Spurious
Correlation Total
effect effect effect
Transformational leadership .54 .25 .00 .25 .00
Soft leadership .56 .36 .00 .36 .00
Social exchange .65 .68 .17 .50 -.03
Economic exchange -.25 .06 .10 -.06 -.31
Commitment .70 .60 .73 .00 .10
RRRRRR222222 ((((((LLLLLLeeeeeeaaaaaarrrrrrnnnnnniiiiiinnnnnngggggg)))))) ====== ......111111555555
fort. Path coefficients measure the degree of effect We have evidence to indicate that CL→SE→CO→LT
induced by one variable in the arrow-pointed vari- is, as expected, a significant positive chain of mecha-
able. nisms among the Oslo schools but this pathway is
The analysis undeniably provides some surprises nevertheless not as significant as the pathway
given the underlying theoretical assumptions. The
PT→SE→CO→LT. This is also somewhat surprising,
largest surprise is that statistical associations between
even though other research supports the significance
teacher commitment and the fostering of effort are
of relational trust among school professionals (Bryk &
clearly stronger among Oslo teachers than among
Schneider, 2002; Tschannen-Moran, 2003). This can
FHS teachers. This contradicts expectations, and this
mean that relational trust is a strong potential inher-
empirical finding should be followed up for validation
ent quality attribute in schools despite the presence of
in further research. In addition, further research
new management forms based on assessment-based
could contribute to a better understanding of the ex-
accountability.
planatory mechanisms regarding this phenomenon.
Table 4. Estimated Effect Components for the Structural Model with Fostering of Effort as Dependent Variable, FHS sam-
ple (N = 366)
Direct Indirect Spurious
Correlation Total
effect effect effect
Transformational leadership .13 -.09 .00 -.09 .00
Soft leadership .21 .27 .00 .27 .00
Social exchange .28 .29 .01 .28 -.01
Economic exchange -.29 -.24 -.13 -.11 -.05
Commitment .37 .30 .30 .00 .07
RRRRRR222222 ((((((LLLLLLeeeeeeaaaaaarrrrrrnnnnnniiiiiinnnnnngggggg)))))) ====== ......555555111111