Bridging accountability obligations, professional values and (perceived) student needs with integrity

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the tensions between external accountability obligations, educator's professional values, and student needs. Strategic, cognitive, and moral dimensions of this tension are captured with the central category of integrity.Design/methodology/approachThis is a mixed methods study that compares five exceptionally high performing middle schools with four exceptionally low performing middle schools in the state of California (USA), controlling for demographics, school context factors, and below average performance range.FindingsIt is found that schools under similar circumstances differ on the degree of integrity. Schools with high integrity have a good balance between values and reality, are more cohesive and more open to dissent. In each case, integrity was associated with an expansion of agency that combined moral earnestness with prudent strategizing and actively constructing interpretive frames that maintained a school's sense of self‐worth. Integrity develops or survives with a good dose of educational leaders’ personal strength, but also depends on leaders’ insistence to fully exhaust the moral horizon of an institution which obligates educators to balance equity, system efficiency, child‐centeredness and professionalism with prudence.Research limitations/implicationsThis is a case study of nine schools in one state. Explanatory relationships can be explored, but not generalized.Practical implicationsThe research has implications for leadership. It demonstrates the power of integrity as a key virtue of leadership under accountability pressures. It shows the different ways integrity can be forged in schools and the different ways it can be missed with consequences for school life.Social implicationsThe paper stresses the point that it is quite conceivable that ideological zeal, Machiavellian strategizing, or eager system conformism may produce more forceful agency than integrity. But as everyday responses they are not as realistic, ethical or productive as the striving for integrity.Originality/valueThe practitioner literature often points to integrity as a desirable quality when dealing with tensions of the sort addressed in this paper, but little systematic theoretical thinking and empirical exploration of this concept exists. The paper makes an advance in both areas.

Accountability, autonomy and stress: principal responses to superintendent change in a large US urban school district

“…Studies have also demonstrated how urban principals used and essentially manipulated external accountabilities (such as test scores) as means to compel their school communities towards improvement (Knapp and Feldman 2012). Other scholars have emphasised how internal accountabilities such as personal integrity and conscience remain central motivators of principals (Gonzalez and Firestone 2013;Mintrop 2012). Terosky (2014) profiled how New York City principals asserted individual agency in order to follow a 'learning imperative' (1) rather than merely a managerial imperative, thus overcoming what other scholars have described as urban school principals' sense of 'limited control' amidst 'relentless accountability' (West, Peck, and Reitzug 2010, 238).…”

“…In doing so, we build on previous research that has examined the work lives and attitudes of principals (Leithwood et al 2004;Mintrop 2012;Shipps 2012;Spillane and Hunt 2010). Specifically, we investigate how principals responded to two different superintendents (chief school system leaders) in a large urban school district in the Southeastern United States.…”

Milwaukee Voucher-School Leaders’ Views on Accountability: What Are They, and Why Do They Matter?

“…First, as discussed in the introduction, Finnigan (2010), Mintrop (2012), Gawlik (2015), and others have demonstrated that accountability policies and frameworks influence the behaviors and performance of schools, school employees, and accountability agents. In other words, there is reason to suspect that the ways in which administrators view accountability frames their relationship with DPI and the public in ways that affect their performance.…”

“…Biesta (2004), for example, provided a theoretical understanding of the importance of accountability by describing the ways in which accountability frameworks define the relationships between school employees, schools, government agencies, and the public at large. Similarly, Rutledge (2010), Finnigan (2010), and Mintrop (2012) demonstrated how high-stakes accountability policies impact the behavior of actors within schools. Gawlik (2015) looked specifically at the case of charter schools and concluded that school actors' perceptions of accountability influence the behaviors and policy preference of charter-school leaders.…”

Principals’ perceptions of public schools’ professional development changes during NCLB

“…Schools with low-SES and higher levels of enrolled minority students reported more focus on local, building-level goal-setting. The literature has shown how local-level leaders often deflect the influence and control of top-down policies, choosing to focus more on local school and community concerns and student data (Alsbury & Whitaker, 2007;Malen, 2003;Miller, 2010;Mintrop, 2012;Sherman, 2008).…”