Accountability in education seems intuitive, but does it have limitations?

By Simon King and Nadya Karim-Shaw ?

Friday Learning Lab???

This series explores education programming and suggests where system “transformation” is more necessary than system “strengthening.” We’ll examine why many components of education programs (specifically foundational literacy and numeracy) are often born out of habit and gut instinct rather than evidence and practice. We’ll suggest alternative pathways supported by research and practice in education and the social sciences.???

We don’t have all the answers???

It’s our desire to enthusiastically encourage discourse and discussion that leads to greater collaboration and understanding of how to support students, educators and other stakeholders. But we cannot effectively support local education systems unless we have an international education sector with a culture that encourages innovation rather than just repeating habits and behaviors that have already had little impact. Join us in this conversation and be a part of the journey to critically examine education systems, our ingrained approaches and sparks of innovation with the potential to move the needle on children’s literacy.??

Accountability has become a staple catchall term in many (or most?) USAID basic education programs. It encompasses a set of ‘check’ and ‘balance’ measurement-oriented functions that education systems are expected to deploy, such as frequent classroom observations and assessments to track student learning outcomes. The resulting data is usually displayed in dashboards with broad access.?

Why is this a common approach, and how well does it work??

Accountability is familiar and necessary, and it often works (pretty well).??

Accountability governs many aspects of our behaviors. Governments implement rules through policies or laws to shape citizen behavior in specific ways, typically for the greater good.??

These rules are straightforward. It’s a matter of following them or not and facing the potential consequences.??

When a new education program is rolled out, there are generally two critical outcomes of accountability: First, the program is being implemented, and second, the program’s delivery in the classroom is of high quality.?

Evidence suggests that a few years after introducing a new education program, there is little to no resistance to implementation. Teachers use the new program and its resources. This has been observed in education systems as diverse as Tanzania and the United States. For this simple rule of compliance, accountability seems to be effective.??

How does accountability in education work??

Education systems are usually organized like any other bureaucracy. However, we generally don’t use the word “bureaucracy” to describe education systems, even though they fit the description. We typically bristle with the mention of bureaucracies. “Education systems” sounds better, right???

Are there limitations of accountability in education??

Like any bureaucracy, education systems are generally better at accountability and assuring compliance. However, bureaucracies do not deal well with culture, beliefs and behaviors. Instead, they prioritize accountability measures focused on checklists, targets and observable measures.??

Consequently, many education systems track whether teachers follow prescribed steps and students use the provided materials, assuming that delivery with a high degree of fidelity will result in improved learning outcomes. A classic example is where projects focus on measuring whether a teacher strictly follows a guide versus whether the teacher has understood its purpose and absorbed the content sufficiently well to adapt it to support their students.?

We risk losing the powerful utility of accountability measures by ignoring the subtleties, complexities, and iterative nature of change needed for teaching and learning. Otherwise, we will be stuck in a merely superficial improvement cycle. As Lantt Pritchet says, accountability data systems “. . . mask a clear inability to actually implement incrementally more complex and contentious tasks.”?

Oddly enough, being part of a bureaucratic education system is usually quite comforting.?

For those of us who, as teachers, have worked within a bureaucratic education system, our immediate response is often resistance to bureaucratic processes. We prefer to use our independence for creativity and problem-solving skills to support student learning. But eventually, bureaucracy smothers us like a straitjacket made from our favorite blanket. It feels oddly restrictive yet comforting at the same time. We process more and think less.??

However, using accountability for compliance or fidelity to achieve quality classroom instruction can often be harmful by changing teachers’ behavior to hinder improved classroom instruction. When teachers get their checkboxes for compliance ticked off, cognitive dissonance can follow, with teachers’ belief that they’re effective in doing what the system wants them to do. Indeed, teachers can also develop the mistaken belief that their students’ skills are progressing even when they are not. The teachers are not to blame for this; they behave according to how the system is designed.??

Bureaucracies decrease creativity, well-being and critical thinking, according to behavioral economist Dan Ariely?

What are the alternatives??

Education systems are underpinned by hierarchical structures. Simple accountability needs for measures such as student and teacher suggests that hierarchy is still likely necessary. However, for teachers to achieve quality classroom instruction, there is a need for an alternative model of support. One of these is reciprocal accountability. Coined by Dr. Richard Elmore, reciprocal accountability recognizes that no one actor or input can directly impact learning outcomes; positive, systemic changes result from complex, interrelated, top-down/bottom-up interactions.??

When designing with reciprocal accountability in mind, the goal is to transfer the locus of control from externally imposed activities with punitive measures to a distributed structure with shared ownership among participants who have bought into clearly articulated expectations.?

Applying reciprocal accountability ideals encourages behavioral shifts through progressive activities that deliberately seek to link and scaffold participants in ways that emphasize rigor, relevance and relationships.???

• Rigor: Selective activities that integrate evidence-based approaches. For example, does the training approach model the behaviors that teachers should emulate? Do the workshops build on participant knowledge and demonstrate universal design principles? If not, what needs to change??

• Relevance: How can we offer professional development to teachers, school leaders and education officials through various flexible, in-person, blended and experiential modalities? Imagine how differently we’d attempt professional development, coaching and follow-up if we stopped herding people into one-size-fits-all workshops in settings few professionals would willingly sit through.???

• Relationships: How do we foster and strengthen trust and transparency across/within institutions and among all stakeholders? How do we promote partnerships that support communication, reflection, and learning? How can projects set up reporting structures that empower individuals to take the risks necessary to change habits and routines while giving them room to innovate??

The outcome can be values-driven systems with officials confidently vested in implementing corrective measures, motivated educators who are incentivized to keep improving, and students who are growing and learning in ways beyond achievement tests.??

?

Simon King serves as Senior Manager of Evaluation and Research. Simon’s technical support for education programs is multifaceted, encompassing evaluation and learning, implementation, system strengthening, and behavioral economics. ?Before working in development, Simon spent many years teaching middle and high school mathematics in many countries, including two years as a volunteer teacher for Volunteer Services Overseas (VSO) in Chipata, Zambia. After moving to the USA, Simon served as a department chair, high school director and school principal. ?Simon uses his experience in the classroom and supporting teachers as the foundation for his role at Creative Associates.?

?

Nadya Karim-Shaw is a Senior Technical Advisor for Education Innovations at Creative Associates International. During her two decades in international development, she has served as a Project Director, Deputy Chief of Party and Country Representative, designing and leading projects in 10 countries, reaching more than 40 million learners and 200,000 teachers. Her focus areas include interactive distance learning, teacher professional development, accelerated programs for out-of-school youth, and workforce development. Passionate about ed-tech and reading, Nadya has mentored several startups and co-created a comic-book series: Sheeba and the Private Detectives. In a prior manifestation, Nadya spent several years poking about system administration, telecommunications and web-design as a corporate IT consultant.?

?