The Problem With Accountability: Looking Across the Cases

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

Abstract

Objectives/Problems
Much of the controversy about teacher education in the U.S. relates to the high stakes accountability approach established by recent initiatives to ensure desired program features and outcomes (Author, 2016a). Building on the challenges involved in accountability initiatives in teacher education taken up in Papers 1-3, the purpose of this paper is to propose new directions for accountability in teacher education by examining alternative conceptions of accountability across disciplines and selected examples of initiatives in teacher education that approach accountability through new lenses.

Perspectives/Literature
This paper resonates with articulations of alternative accountability approaches for education and the public sector based on trust, collective responsibility, and collaboration (e.g., O’Neill, 2002; Sahlberg, 2010). Some scholars (e.g., Sahlberg, 2010) recast accountability as the mutual responsibility of all stakeholders. They call for “intelligent accountability” (Crooks, 2003, p. 2) that utilizes a variety of measures to allow substantive and knowledgeable judgment about professional work. Fullan and colleagues (2015) concur, stressing the power of systemic, collective accountability, wherein stakeholders collaborate within and across institutions to produce substantial improvements.


Modes of Inquiry/Evidence
Our conceptual analysis applied the framework of intersecting planes, which we proposed in Paper 1 and elaborated in Papers 2 and 3, to a small body of literature on alternative accountability approaches in education and elsewhere. We reviewed conceptual frameworks (e.g. Fullan et al., 2015) as well as selected initiatives that seemed to get aspects of accountability “right” (e.g., Reagan et al., 2016). For each source, we examined how the two planes and four dimensions were represented. We used these analyses to further develop the framework initially proposed in Paper 1.

Significance/Conclusions
As Papers 2 and 3 suggest, many accountability initiatives focus on one or two dimensions, ignoring the others and not considering how the dimensions are related. In contrast, we found that several promising initiatives (e.g., Reagan et al., 2016) in teacher education accountability attended to dimensions in both planes of the framework. We propose that a new conception of teacher education accountability should acknowledge that four dimensions intersect with one another (see Figure 3), and that for each dimension (e.g. internal-external accountability), there are particular relationships that are associated with more powerful models of teacher education accountability, which we outline in Table 2. We propose that within the theory of change plane, a balance should be negotiated between internal and external accountability, such that external bodies and teacher education programs collaborate to develop systems that align and are meaningful for both parties. Similarly, on the content plane, teaching and teacher education should be viewed as complex professional activities that require collaboration and networking among stakeholders. When the two planes in this model are understood as intersecting, the four dimensions come together to create a new conception of teacher education accountability built on three principles: professional responsibility, trust and collaboration among stakeholders, and what we have called “strong equity” (Author, 2016a). This alternative view of accountability emphasizes teacher education for the public good rather than individual gain or competition among programs.

Authors

• Stephani Burton, Boston College

• Wen-Chia Claire Chang, National Institute of Education - Nanyang Technological University