Words: 3927
In particular, the different facets of school accountability are examined through a theoretical ramekin comprising four relatively distinct concepts of accountability as performance reporting; as a technical process; as a political process; and as an institutional process. This paper also examines the issues and challenges faced by schools as they respond to the demands of school accountability. Sponsored School accountability . Policy . Performance indicators .
Quality assurance 1 Introduction: School accountability In many educational systems, different stakeholders of schools demand schools to be accountable, each in their own way. School accountability is therefore a term that seems to have multiple meanings. Indeed, there are different ways in which it can be defined, presented or understood. For example, Stretcher and Kirby (2004, p. 22) referred to it as ‘the practice of holding educational systems responsible for the quality of their products-??students’ knowledge, skills, and behaviors”. Hofmann et al. 2007, p. 24) referred to it as “all devices that attach consequences to measured educational achievement’. Indeed, as Levin (1974, p. 363) opined: Some authors assert that the provision of information on the performance of schools constitutes accountability. Others see accountability s a matter of redesigning the structures by which education is governed. In some cases accountability is defined as a specific approach to education such as performance contracting or educational vouchers, while in others accountability is referred to as P.
T. Eng (*) National Institute of Education, Nanning Technological University, 1, Nanning Walk, Singapore 63761 6, Republic of Singapore e-mail: packet. ng@nie. Deed. So 276 Educe Ease Veal AC (2010) 22:275-292 a part of all educational systems. It is common to hear that statewide testing programs as well as recent state legislation which would enable schools to ruminate the appointments of “poor” teachers represent a response to the need for accountability.
Given the many ways of understanding this concept, Line (2003) argued that true accountability was a shared responsibility for improving education, not only among educators and students, but also administrators, policymakers, parents, and educational researchers. There are also many models of school accountability. For example, Norm??s (2004) model identified the following approaches of accountability: market, decentralized, political, legal, bureaucratic and moral accountability. Carillon’s 2002) model essentially asked “is this a good school? ” and “is the school getting better? “.
In general, researchers have delineated the typologies of accountability, noting differences among them. Literature in the field generally tries to answer the question of the nature of school accountability with respect to who is holding whom accountable and for what. Generally, it is assumed that the goal of school accountability and its associated accountability-based interventions is to improve teaching and learning (Adams and Skirts 1 999; Darling-Hammond and Casher 1 991; Today and Smith 1993; Reilly 1996). Some researchers have also examined this issue from a wider political perspective.
In a number of countries, government agencies are held accountable for public spending and the services provided with such resources (egg. Atkinson 2005; Matte and O’Brien 2002). School accountability is but an aspect of this higher governmental accountability, which holds policy makers accountable through evaluating their decision-making and use of public money in education. Educational systems in which parents exercise choice in school selection (Hooky 2003) practice a form of school accountability by making school performance information available to the public.
Therefore, the concept of school accountability can be and has been approached from many different angles. This paper adopts Eleven’s (1974) framework for accountability, comprising four relatively distinct concepts of accountability as: & a performance reporting process-??This concept is about reporting the performance of schools, usually based on examination and other key student results, under the assumption that the information on such results enables stakeholders to appraise school effectiveness. Technical process: This concept assumes there is reasonable unanimity on the goals of schooling and the issue is a technical one of getting the goals delivered within the constraints of budget, human resource and other factors. This approach relies mainly on quality assurance models, which aim to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of schools as an operating system. A political process: This concept asks the pertinent question Of whom the schools are accountable to, even if there is agreement on the goals of education generally and schools specifically.
A school is a social institution that actually serves a large number of stakeholders, each with its own goals. The balance point lies n the political process which favors one group over another. Educe Ease Veal AC (2010) 22:275-292 277 an institutional process: This concept raises questions about the legitimacy of the process by which education is currently defined and delivered. From this perspective, professionals in the system are asked to reflect upon the way in which schooling can lead to a better society.
Using Eleven’s framework, this paper describes and examines the nature and evolution of school accountability in the Singapore Education System. While there are many overlapping models of school accountability, Eleven’s (1974) del was chosen to analyses the Singapore case study for two reasons. Firstly, it is a model that shows clearly the concepts of school accountability that are strong in Singapore and those that are weak. Secondly, it is a ‘classic’ model that suitably highlights how the concept of school accountability evolves according to the developmental stages of the Singapore education system.
This paper also examines the issues and challenges faced by schools as they respond to the demands of each concept of school accountability. It argues that school accountability as an institutional process is the weakest mongo the four concepts and needs to be more strongly emphasized as Singapore seeks an educational transformation. 2 School accountability as a performance reporting process According to Levin (1 974), school accountability as a performance reporting process is the most straight forward and common definition of the accountability concept.
The assumption underlying the performance reporting interpretation of school accountability is that by reporting examination and other key student results, school effectiveness could be objectively appraised. In Singapore, school accountability as performance reporting currently comes in three ajar ways: school ranking, the School Excellence Model (SEEM) and the School Awards system. School ranking is an issue in the Singapore educational system that has generated heated debates among citizens, school professionals and members of parliament.
Since 1992, all secondary schools and pre-universities have been ranked annually and the results published in the local media. There are three main ranking criteria (Eng 2007): & & & the students’ overall results in the national examinations; the ‘value- added-news’ of the school by comparing the students’ examination performance with the score with which they gained entry to the school; and he students’ performance in the National physical Fitness Test and the percentage of overweight students in the school.
However, not all stakeholders in education approved of such a ranking exercise. Some of the criticisms were the heightened competition among schools, the narrow focus on results to the detriment of holistic education and the overwhelming pressure on students. An external review team commissioned by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in 1 997 pointed out the negative aspects of school ranking (Ministry of Education 1997) and set up the momentum to re-examine the ranking exercise. Although ranking continued after the report, it was subsequently modified in 2004.
Instead of ranking schools based on exact academic scores, schools with similar 278 academic performances are now banded together and exact ranking positions are not made known to the public (Eng 2007, AAA). It may appear that nearly 7 years elapsed before ranking was modified to banding. However, in the mean time, an event significant to the issue of school accountability in Singapore took place in 2000. During that year, the MOE introduced a self-assessment model for schools, called the School Excellence Model (SEEM).
This model was adapted from the various quality models used by business organizations, namely the European Foundation of Quality Management (FEES), the Singapore Quality Award (SQ) model and the education version of the American Malcolm Baldrics National Quality Award model (MAMBA). According to the MOE (2000), the SEEM aims to provide a means to objectively identify and measure the schools’ strengths and areas for improvement. It also aims to allow schools to benchmark against similar schools.
This is supposed to stimulate activities that will improve school quality and ultimately the quality of the education system. The way that the SEEM operates has been discussed by Eng (2003). Briefly, the model assumes that there are organizational factors, called ‘Enablers’, which produce outcomes called ‘Results’. Each of the categories, ‘Enablers’ and ‘Results’, takes up half the total score in the SEEM. The ‘Enablers’ category comprises five assessable criteria of Leadership, Strategic Planning, Staff Management, Resources and Student-Focused Processes.
The ‘Results’ category comprises four assessable criteria of Administrative and Operational Results, Staff Results, Partnership and Society Results, Key Performance Results. Key Performance Results, which usually comprise school results in the national level examinations and other key learning areas, account for 30% of the total score in the SEEM (Ministry of Education 2000). A third way of performance reporting is the School Awards system. The Mainstream of Awards for schools is linked to the SEEM. There are four levels of awards (Ministry of Education 2004).
At the first level, Achievement Awards are given to schools each year for the year’s achievements. Development Awards are also given to schools for achievements in Character Development and National Education. At the second level, Best Practices Awards (Baas) are given to schools to recognize them for their good scores in the Enablers category. The Sustained Achievement Awards (AAAS) are given to schools to recognize them for sustained good scores in the Results category. The Outstanding Development Awards are given to schools to recognize them for outstanding and sustained achievements in Character Development and National Education.
At the third level Of the awards, the School Distinction Awards (Sodas) recognize the high- achieving schools with exemplary school processes and practices, and are on heir way to the School Excellence Awards (SEAs). At the apex level of the awards, the School Excellence Awards (SEAS) give recognition to schools for overall excellence in education processes and outcomes. Information on the number and type of awards achieved by each school is published on the MOE website (Ministry of Education 2004). Therefore, this is a form of performance reporting to the public regarding the achievements of the school.
However, one notes at this stage that the achievements of schools are published but not the ‘failings’ of the school. The SEEM scores and the SEEM reports are also pet confidential. This point will be addressed in a subsequent section in this paper. Educe Ease Veal AC (2010) 22275-292 279 While performance reporting is a ‘popular’ form of school accountability globally, Levin (1974) raised two serious questions about viewing school accountability as performance reporting. Firstly, it is assumed that there is unanimity on the objectives of education among stakeholders.
In Singapore, this is both true and untrue. Culturally, Singapore is a society that is result- oriented. Parents want results. Employers look for results. The government emphasizes results (Eng AAA). In this sense, there is unanimity in the goals of education. However, the government is now increasingly emphasizing a different type of goal. As the globalizes knowledge age economy accords premium to creativity and innovation, the government wants to adopt a broader definition of success to cultivate different types of talent.
The education system has achieved many enviable results, especially in the area of Mathematics and Science, evidenced by the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMES) results (Thurman AAA). Despite the ‘success’ in achieving ‘quantity’, the ‘quality’ aspect of education was inadequate. The students were passive learners, driven externally to perform but not necessarily engaged or inspired (Thurman Bibb; Eng Bibb). Moreover, the students were not innovative or entrepreneurial enough for the knowledge-age economy (Eng Bibb).
Therefore, to address these issues, the government has attempted to shift the focus of education from ‘quantity’ to ‘quality and adopt a broader definition of success (Thurman Bibb; Eng Bibb). However, the culture in the country has not shifted much in this area. Parents and other relevant stakeholders are still predominantly focused on examination results. With such good outcomes reported each year, key stakeholders may not wish to change the educational paradigm. The biggest enemy to educational reform in Singapore is its success!
Secondly, Levin (1974) questioned how the provision of information through mechanism Of accountability as performance reporting would actually alleviate observed deficiencies in educational outcomes. It might in fact reinforce certain deficiencies. Because of performance reporting in an era of increasing educational improvisation in Singapore (Amok 2003; Tan 2005), some schools ‘played it smart’ by focusing narrowly on those outcomes that were relevant or the assessment system and that would be made known to the public to attract students and parents (Tan 2005).
This happened not only in examinable subjects. Even in physical education, the MOE has acknowledged that some schools have over-emphasized preparation for the National Physical Fitness Test at the expense of the acquisition of skills in sports and GA mess, simply because this test was part of the key performance indicators (Tan 2005). Therefore, school accountability as performance reporting has added pressure to many schools.
Heightened inter-school competition may cake it more difficult to foster cooperation among schools when the various schools are vying with one another to boost their schools’ standing in the education marketplace. Indeed, the real school mission may become a quest to outdo another school (Eng and Chant 2008). 3 School accountability as a technical process According to Levin (1974), another perspective of school accountability is that of a technical process. In this approach, the assumption is that the goals of schooling are 280 reasonably unanimous among stakeholders.
The challenge is then a technical one of getting the goals delivered within resource constraints. This approach relies mainly on quality assurance models to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of schools. In Singapore, school accountability as a technical process is clearly demonstrated as part of the current School Excellence Model (SEEM). The ‘Enablers’ category precisely evaluates the efficiency and effectiveness of the technical process of schooling within a school.
In evaluating the technical process, the SEEM requires (MOE 2000; Eng 2003): & & & & & & & & a sound and integrated approach for systematic, continuous improvement for all criteria of quality defined by the model; a systematic plowmen of the approach and the degree of implementation; a regular assessment and review of the approaches and their deployment, based on monitoring and analysis of the results achieved and on-going activities; an identification, procrastination, planning and implementation of improvement activities; a set of appropriate and challenging performance targets; a continuous improvement of results over three to five years; a benchmarking Of performance against comparable schools; and an identification Of the causes of good or bad results. Each school in Singapore has to use the SEEM to conduct self-assessment early. An external team from the MOE validates the self-assessment results approximately once in 5 years. The assessment process requires explicit evidence to justify a certain score. Without evidences, the SEEM does not permit a score beyond that for ad hoc performance, which is generally a low score. Moreover, to score well, a school must provide evidences of continuous improvement in that assessed criterion through trend analysis (Eng 2003).
Other than the MOE school awards, schools may also apply for various other quality certification and awards in the industrial or commercial sectors. To do so, schools may request for additional external validations, other than the once-ins-years mandatory one, to qualify for these awards. Serious questions have also been raised regarding school accountability as a technical process. Firstly, the school is the unit of examination and interventions, but the individual is the unit of action (Today 2002). In other words, such a view of school accountability assumes that targeting the school unit will generate the desired changes in the individuals within that unit.
However, what is lacking is the mechanism by which accountability at the school level can be used to mobiles changes in individuals (Today 2002). The conditions for such changes at the individual level are unclear. Such a view of school accountability also assumes that it is possible to use external control to improve internal operations. But many have argued that rules decreed from on high Often have very little impact on school operations, especially when it comes to very subtle and entrenched ones, such as the processes of teaching and learning (Elmer 1 996; Marion 1999). In Singapore, the underlying theory in the SEEM is that self-evaluation coupled with external alteration will provide information for schools to engage in learning and innovation.
Theoretically, there is a feedback loop in the model so that the 281 outcomes of the appraisal process in the ‘Results’ category leads to learning and innovation in the ‘Enablers’ category. However, like many other countries (egg. Rene et al. 2005; Rene and Fischer 2006; Maier 2010; Ferryman 2009), the validation or appraisal exercise, which takes substantial time and effort, does not necessarily translate into improvements. Some teachers are cynical of such an exercise and find all sorts of ‘excuses’ not to deal with the feedback. Others are too busy catering to the demands of the system itself. This includes data gathering, collection of evidences, trend analysis, information reporting, report presentation and extensive documentation.
The lack of time is a very hard obstacle to overcome for making teacher learning and school improvement a reality (TTY 2000). Eng (2007) wrote: The SEEM is a good diagnostic system for self-appraisal and identifying areas for improvement, and could be coupled with an appropriate quality improvement action framework. But it does not necessarily promote cutting edge innovation. In practice, in order to score well on the SEEM, many people ay be bogged down by data collection and report writing. The generation of the report may not be matched by an equally enthusiastic follow-up action because people are already exhausted getting the report out. This takes the momentum away from improvement and innovation.
Secondly, the collection of information for this technical process can be also problematic in schools (Today 2002). For school accountability as a technical process, information is the life-blood of the accountability mechanism. However, the essential questions of what information to collect and how it is to be collected in a meaningful way are left inadequately addressed. What are valid and reliable indicators in the various assessment criteria? Moreover, the interpretation of the collected information is also a judgment call. Therefore, the school finds itself in a position of having to argue its case by presenting data in such a way to create a favorable impression with external inspectors.
According to Today (2002), much of the information is irrelevant to the improvement of teaching and learning but distracts and draws away attention and resources from the main work of staff and students. This paper has indicated in an earlier section that in Singapore, the government has begun a movement to haft the focus of the education system from ‘quantity’ to ‘quality. This policy initiative, launched in 2005, is called ‘Teach Less Learn More’ (TALL) (Eng Bibb). TALL is about developing engaged learners among students through curriculum and pedagogical reform. Some outcomes that TALL hopes to achieve among students include self-directed learning, deep understanding of concepts, appreciation of subject, and knowledge construction and sharing.
Pedagogies are expected to shift from knowledge transmission to knowledge construction, didactic teaching to social constructivism, and summarize readers to provision of formative feedback. In an era of TALL, how does one define quantitatively the idea of such ‘quality? As it stands, in responding to the stipulations of school accountability as a technical process, there is pressure to look for quantifiable performance indicators, which may or may not pick out the subtle nuances of quality change. How does one measure engaged learning, social constructivism, knowledge creation and subject appreciation in a valid and reliable 282 way across schools?
Even for a concept such as ‘value added’, which is very prominent in many quality assurance models, the issue of validity and liability is not straightforward at all (Van De Graft 2009). Are school teachers equipped with the deep professional knowledge to construct valid and reliable indicators for the subtle qualities required in TALL? Moreover, the MOE has also empowered each school to search for their own recipe of success because “schools are in the best position to decide how to run their school programmed based on the students they have and the competencies of their staff’ (Too 2000). The SEEM in theory allows benchmarking across schools.
But, other than certain examination results which are standardized n the country, how can an indicator for one school be valid or reliable for another school, when each school is unique and empowered to design its own processes? Thirdly, there is a question of whether accountability as a technical process is more applicable in a business world where profit margin is the bottom-line. Levin (1974, p. 368) wrote: Perhaps the one factor that all of these methods share is their similarity to devices used in business and industry. Cost-accounting systems, employee productivity ratings, contracting for services, cost-effectiveness analysis, and information systems for management decision making all represent technical methods that are used widely by industry and business in their search for efficiency.
Yet most firms have a fairly well-defined objective (profit or sales minimization), and thus can utilize technical approaches to efficiency without concern for underlying political conflicts of the sort that arise among the many constituencies served by the educational system. This makes the comment by Eng (2003, up. 37-??38) pertinent: For many years, the world of education has been unsullied by influences from the business and management world. With the recent influx f business models, certain school leaders may question whether the use of an excellence model is appropriate and whether it can really deliver on its promise. For example, is it appropriate for a school to aim for excellence against all the SEEM criteria? Can a school be an excellent school without collecting evidence of its excellence?
Can a school be an excellent school, just simply known for its caring teachers and values inculcation? Certain school leaders may feel that the SEEM and its requirement to collect evidences is just a hindrance because the school has been doing all the right things except that t has not been keen on codifying everything and producing evidences. 4 School accountability as a political process According to Levin (1 974), the concept of accountability as performance reporting and as a technical process assumes that there is a general agreement among stakeholders on the goals of education. However, in reality, a school actually serves a large number of stakeholders with differing goals.
Each of these stakeholders would like the school to fulfill its own expectations but the school could not fulfill all 283 of them because there are limited resources. Therefore, the concept of school accountability as a political process addresses the pertinent question of to whom the schools are accountable. Schools answer to some groups more than others. It depends on the power that the particular group has over the school. It takes a political process to find this subtle point of balance. There are two questions in this regard. Firstly, to whom are Singapore schools accountable? Secondly, is there a power struggle for the accountability of schools among the various stakeholders?