Teacher Education Accountability: A Multidimensional Framework

• In Event: 32.040 - Getting Accountability Right in Teacher Education

Abstract

Problem/Objectives
The U.S. teacher education accountability landscape is complex, with new accountability forms layered onto existing forms (Romzek, 2000), and multiple co-existing accountability schemes with: differing goals and targets (Honig, 2006); new (and old) regulatory, professional, and advocacy actors (Wilson, 2014); local, state, national, and global influences (Akiba & LeTendre, 2009); and contrasting framings of the “the problem” of teacher education (Author, 2005; Entman, 1993). In the U.S., there is growing unrest about top-down accountability as well as local and larger critiques of many accountability initiatives. Paper 1 proposes a framework for making sense of this complex accountability context.

Data Sources/Modes of Inquiry
The papers in this session draw on the research of an interdisciplinary team that has been charting the landscape of U.S. teacher education accountability and reform since 2014 (Author, 2016a, 2016b). The team has constructed a repository of 1000+ policy documents and tools, media artifacts, position statements, and critiques related to teacher education quality, accountability, and/or reform. (See Table 1 for examples of documents analyzed in this session.) Drawing on the group’s analyses of accountability frames and evidence (Author, 2016a, 2016b) as well as on accountability theory, Paper 1 argues for a new way to think about accountability in teacher education with rich possibilities for the future.

Perspectives/Literature
Trow (1996) defines accountability as “the obligation to report to others, to explain, to justify, to answer questions about how resources have been used, and to what effect” (p. 2). Romzek (2000) provides a “comprehensive” framework (Huisman & Currie, 2004) for understanding public sector accountability according to: source of expectations/control (internal or external) and degree of autonomy regarding actions (low or high). Romzek’s two-dimensional framework yields four accountability types, the last two most likely to occur in higher education: hierarchical (internal control, low autonomy), legal (external control, low autonomy), professional (internal control, high autonomy), and political (external control, high autonomy).

Analyses/Conclusions/Significance
Paper 1 concurs with Romzek (2000) that in complex western democracies, there are competing claims to authority and conflicting expectations for professional work. Although two-dimensional frameworks are helpful, Paper 1 concludes they are not sufficient for sorting out the messy teacher education accountability context with its shifting web of multiple competing approaches. The proposed framework begins with Romzek’s internal-external accountability dimension, widely discussed in the education literature (Carnoy et al., 2003; Fullan et al., 2015; Sahlberg, 2010). Building on that single dimension, Paper 1 proposes a more complex framework with two planes, each with two intersecting dimensions conceptualized as continua rather than either-or characteristics. Figure 1 represents the “theory of change” plane, comprised of the intersection of internal-to-external sources of control/expectations and indirect-to-direct consequences, implementers and targets. Figure 2 represents the “content” accountability plane, comprised of the intersection of technical-to-complex notions of teaching/teacher education and inputs-to-outcomes objects of accountability. Paper 1 elaborates the issues related to these two planes of accountability in teacher education and links these to accountability issues in teacher education, K-12 education, and higher education as well in the public sector.

Author

• Marilyn Cochran-Smith, Boston College