Conceptualizing Accountability for Education

Prepared for the SSTA by Renee Kuchapski, University of Saskatchewan.
SSTA Research Centre Report #02-08: 42 pages, $11

Table of Contents

Introduction

Part I: A Brief History of Accountability in Education

Part II: Shifting Educational Purposes
Education and the Good Society

Political Liberalsim
Economic Liberalism
Ethical Liberalsim
Technological Liberalism
Summary
Part III: Principles of Accountability
Disclosure
Disclosure in Accounting
Limitations of Disclosure
Transparency
Limitation of Transparency
Redress

Part 1V: Implications for Practice
Disclosure
Transparency
Redress

References

Appendix A

Overview

This report is a summary of a doctoral disseration conducted by Renee Kuchapski, Univeristy of Saskatchewan.

The call to enhance accountability has provided a central focus of recent educational reforms.  The increased attention given to accountability by scholars and practitioners reflects its perceived importance for education.  Yet, accountability reforms have often been at the centre of controversy and debate.  For some, the represent the best way to improve the quality of public education.  For others, they restrict and narrow what is taught in schools, and serve to undermine hard won educational improvements of the past.

This study was an inquiry into the idea of accountability.  It was undertaken to develop a better understanding of the concept itself, and to develop an accountability model for use in public education.

The report, (1) provides a brief history of accountability reforms in public education, (2) reviews what an accountable education looks like from the perspecitve of the four strands of liberalism that have shaped public education in Canada, (3) outlines three accountability principles, and (4) suggest practical applicants for those assigned and the task of enhancing accountability in education.


Back to: Evaluation and Reporting


The SSTA Research Centre grants permission to reproduce up to three copies of each report for personal use.
Each copy must acknowledge the author and the SSTA Research Centre as the source.  A complete and authorized copy of each report is  available from the SSTA Research Centre.
The opinions and recommendations expressed in this report are those of the author and may not be in agreement with SSTA officers or trustees, but are offered as being worthy of consideration by those responsible for making decisions.


Introduction
 
Over the past several decades, a general concern that public education must become more accountable has provided the impetus for  a variety of reforms in education.  These reforms have typically included performance reports of student achievement on standardized tests provincial indicator reports, organizational planning models (i.e. Alberta Education, 1995), and input-process-output models (ie. Organization of Educational Research and Improvement [OERI], 1988).  In addition, government departments of accountability have been created in Ontario and in several U.S. states, and positions of ‘director of accountability’ have been formed in school board offices (i.e. Western Quebec School Board).  School accreditation and teacher testing programs have also been developed.

Advocates promote accountability reforms on the basis that they will improve the quality of education (Fagan, 1995; McEwen, 1995).  Opponents, however, claim the opposite is true.  Cilbulka (1990), for example, notes that the rationale for performance reporting remains unclear, and Sykes and Elmore (1988) argue that accountability reforms have “contribute[d] to school climates that are profoundly anti-educational” (p. 91).  Furthermore, in their research on schools, Newmann, King, and Rigdon (1997) observe that externally mandated accountability reforms decrease the internal capacity of schools to improve.  Macpherson (1995) goes so far as to declare that “in practical and theoretical terms, the area [of accountability] is a mess” (p. 475).

 Much of controversy over accountability reforms is directed around the relative merit of specific accountability procedures.  These debates are not so much about accountability (who would argue against accountability in public education?) as they are about conflicting visions of what public schools, and society, ought to look like.  For example, the debates over standardized testing are embedded in differences of opinion over whether schools should give priority to a uniform education (which is necessary if standardized tests are to be legitimate) or whether they should give priority to flexible programs that can be adapted to meet the unique needs of individual 

 The study upon which this report is based was an inquiry into the idea of accountability.  As such, it assumed that accountability has a meaning that is identifiable and can be agreed upon regardless of one’s vision of education.  Furthermore, it assumed that a better understanding of accountability would reveal why intelligent people differ over what an accountable system of education would look like.  And, from a more practical perspective, it assumed that a better understanding of accountability would provide the basis for an accountability framework that could serve as a common point of reference for disparate accountability procedures.  A framework of this nature would not be centered on procedures, but rather, on commonly agreed upon principles and elements of accountability. 

 This report provides a summary of key components of the research undertaken.  To do this, it is divided into four sections.  The first section provides a brief history of accountability initiatives in public education in Great Britain, the United States and Canada.  The second uses Manzer’s (1994) historical analysis of educational policy in Canada to illustrate the extent to which what public education has been held accountable for has changed over time in accordance with changing liberal visions of the purposes of education.  The third section directs attention more specifically on the idea of accountability by identifying and discussing three principles that trace their history to the idea of accountability in democracy.  The fourth discusses the implications of this research for those assigned the challenging task of ‘making public education more accountable.'

Advocates promote accountability reforms on the basis that they will improve the quality of education (Fagan, 1995; McEwen, 1995).
 
 
 
 
 
 

Sykes and Elmore (1988) argue that accountability reforms have “contribute[d] to school climates that are profoundly anti-educational” (p. 91). 
 
 
 
 

These debates are not so much about accountability (who would argue against accountability in public education?) as they are about conflicting visions of what public schools, and society, ought to look like. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The study . . . assumed that accountability has a meaning that is identifiable and can be agreed upon regardless of one’s vision of education.
 
 
 

.. . it assumed that a better understanding of accountability would provide the basis for an accountability framework that could serve as a common point of reference for disparate accountability procedures students and communities.


Table of Contents


Part I:  A Brief History of Accountability in Education
 
Accountability reforms are not new to education.  In the 1860s, in Great Britain, a system of accountability by results was implemented upon the recommendation of the Newcastle Commission.  In its 1861 report to Parliament, the Commission, which was established to recommend strategies for providing the masses with a ‘sound and cheap’ education, concluded that teachers were spending too little time teaching students the basic subjects.  In response, through its Revised Code of 1862, Parliament “stipulated exactly what children of each ‘grade’ should be able to perform in terms of reading, writing, and arithmetic, and linked payment of grants to pupil performance in this narrow range of skills” (Layton & Lacey, 1981, p. 26).  Although payment by results gradually disappeared by the end of the 19th Century, the standardized examinations that were introduced through it became institutionalized in the elementary, and later the secondary school systems (Nixon, 1992). 

In the United States, the history of accountability is frequently traced to the efficiency movement, and to scientific management, both of which emerged at the beginning of the 20th Century.  Industry’s strategies to organize factories and make them efficient made their way into public education.  The roles of administrators and teachers became prescribed as sets of principles for the operation of schools.  The efficiency movement was aligned with a focus on vocationalism that provided “an exact statement of what [would] later be called accountability, functional literacy, career education, competency-based education, competency based career education and more” (Wise, 1979, p. 84).  A philosophy of earning over learning developed.  This is apparent in the words of an educator speaking in 1909,who declared, “Ordinarily a love of learning is praiseworthy.  But when this delight in the pleasures of learning becomes so intense and so absorbing that it diminishes the desire, and the power of earning, it is possibly harmful” (cited in Bobitt, 1913, pp. 81-90).

The focus on accountability waned in the U.S. until the late 1950s when the success of Sputnik created a link between education and national security.  It was believed that “a union of research and development might be applied to education with results comparable to those achieved in aeronautics, atomic energy and medical science” (Chase, 1971, p 182).  Furthermore, because it was generally believed that education “was too sluggish to respond promptly to the new demands or to make good use of science and technology for the engineering of change” (Chase, 1971, p. 182), making public education more accountable became a national priority.  Educational reforms were influenced by initiatives and funding from the Department of National Defence, and from 1965 to 1967, administrators from Health, Education and Welfare were required to attend seminars to learn from the Department of Defence.  In this way, the Programming, Planning and Budgeting Systems [PPBS] adapted by them made their way into public education. 

Accountability models of education reflected the influence of PPBS, which was premised on a “scientific approach to education, science in the sense of a methodology for the management and control of the educational process” (Gardner, 1977, p. 376).  By the mid 1960s, “the central management perspective under which state mandated accountability programs would be formulated had been set into place” (Johnson, 1979, p. 374), and accountability legislation became focused on rational planning models that remain into the present day (cf. Alberta Education, 1995).

Although accountability remained a topic of interest in the 70s, it was A Nation at Risk that riveted national attention back to accountability in public education.   Released by the National Commission on Excellence in Education in 1983, it easily became the most controversial and influential report of the 1980s.  It warned, “Our nation is at risk . . . Our once unchallenged pre-eminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world” (p. 5).  This decline in competitive advantage was not attributed to outdated and ineffective management practices of business, or even to increased competition from Europe and Asia, but rather to public education.  The report suggested, “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might have viewed it as an act of war” (p. 3). 

A Nation at Risk provided the rationale for educational restructuring in what is commonly referred to as the standard raising movement.  Education was to be improved through state legislation and mandates that would be implemented at the local level.  A year later, a series of Wall Charts were released to provide input-process-output data on all 50 state educational systems (Macpherson, 1996, p 84).  As well, individual state departments began to develop and collect their own indicators with forty states enacting new testing requirements in the 1980s.  Between 1983 and 1987, 275 state level task forces or commissions were established for reshaping education (Wirt & Kirst, 1989, pp. 3-4).  The trend to increase student testing and to compile statistical indicators continued throughout the 1990s reinforced, by the Governor’s Summit of 1989, and Clinton’s Goals 2000:Educate America Act

Bottani and Tuijnman (1994) note that the first study of international indicators for education was undertaken by the Organization of Economic Development [OECD] in April, 1973.  Although initially greeted with enthusiasm and high expectations, it was eventually abandoned because the performance/expectation gap led to debates on the proper role of social and educational research.  Bottani and Tuijnman attribute the re-emergence of interest in indicators and statistics directly to A Nation at Risk, which made indicator data a major policy interest.  The report is also credited with increasing the level of public level funding for international comparative studies in other countries, including Canada 

Demands for greater accountability have provided the “central thrust in Canadian educational reform agendas during the last decade” (Mawhinney, 1995, p. 505).  As in the U.S. and Great Britain, the rationale for accountability reforms has been attributed to both the “Perceived short-comings in education, and [to] international competition” (McEwen, 1995b, p. 45).  Concerns over “economic and political uncertainty” have refocused attention on education as the means to national economic health.   As one government bureaucrat stated, 

Beginning with A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983), the public has become alarmed that schools are not preparing students for the new millennium.  This report is about education in the United States, but many people believe that the issues raised apply to Canadian education systems as well. (McEwen, 1995a, p. 14) 
The belief that the existing system of public education is not adequate for facing the challenges of a competitive, global society has again provided a rationale for government intervention into education.  Reflecting this, the Premiers of Canada issued a joint declaration in August, 1993, announcing their full support for the Council of Ministers of Education Canada [CMEC] “to provide leadership for change and to provide the strong national voice in Canada” (CMEC, 1993, p. 1).  This would be provided through:  (1) the establishment of a national group to examine curriculum comparability and possible joint initiatives in curriculum development, (2) the continuation and expansion of the School Achievement Indicators Program (SAIP), (3) the establishment of a new joint CMEC/Statistics Canada project for developing pan-Canadian indicators of performance, (4) the development of linkages and partnerships with students, parents, business and labour, and appropriate federal departments and agencies, and (5) leadership for a pan-Canadian conference on education priorities and joint initiatives (pp. 2-3).  Accountability was identified as one of the CMEC’s three major themes.

A useful way to summarize educational reforms is provided by Linn (2000) who identified five “waves” of reforms that occurred during the last 50 years in the U.S. They are:

1950s:  tracking and selection
1960s:  program accountability
1970s:  minimum competency testing
1980s:  school and district accountability
1990s:  standards based accountability systems. 
The recent focus on outputs and results represents a move towards standards based accountability systems in Canada. 

 

Accountability reforms are not new to education. In the 1860s, in Great Britain, a system of accountability by results was implemented upon the recommendation of the Newcastle Commission
 
 
 
 
 

“Ordinarily a love of learning is praiseworthy.  But when this delight in the pleasures of learning becomes so intense and so absorbing that it diminishes the desire, and the power of earning, it is possibly harmful” (cited in Bobitt, 1913, pp. 81-90).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Furthermore, because it was generally believed that education “was too sluggish to respond promptly to the new demands or to make good use of science and technology for the engineering of change” (Chase, 1971, p. 182), making public education more accountable became a national priority.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Accountability models of education reflected the influence of PPBS, which was premised on a “scientific approach to education, science in the sense of a methodology for the management and control of the educational process” (Gardner, 1977, p. 376). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Nation at Risk provided the rationale for educational restructuring in what is commonly referred to as the standard raising movement. Education was to be improved through state legislation and mandates that would be implemented at the local level. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Bottani and Tuijnman (1994) attribute the re-emergence of interest in indicators and statistics directly to A Nation at Risk, which made indicator data a major policy interest. . The report is also credited with increasing the level of public level funding for international comparative studies in other countries, including Canada.
 
 
 
 
 

The belief that the existing system of public education is not adequate for facing the challenges of a competitive, global society has again provided a rationale for government intervention into education.  Reflecting this, the Premiers of Canada issued a joint declaration in August, 1993, announcing their full support for the Council of Ministers of Education Canada [CMEC] “to provide leadership for change and to provide the strong national voice in Canada” (CMEC, 1993, p. 1). 


Table of Contents


Part II: Shifting Educational Purpose
 
This section provides a historical context for discussing educational accountability in Canada.   It uses Manzer’s (1994) analysis of educational policy to illustrate how educational purpose (and thus what public education is expected to be held accountable for) has changed over time.  In this way, it helps to clarify how accountability is perceived from the perspective of different strands of liberalism that have shaped public education over times.  First, it discusses the relationship between education and the good society.  Next, it relates accountability to changing educational purposes.  Finally, it discusses the present divide in education and the implications of this divide for what is considered 'an instance of accountability.' "Plato taught, a theory of education is a critical element in every political theory; the converse of Plato's dictum is also true: every theory of learning is a theory of policitcs"
(Manzer, 1994, p. 7)


Table of Contents


Education and the Good Society
 
It has long been recognized that public schools are necessary for developing and nurturing a particular view of what society ought to look like.  As Manzer (1994) notes, schools are human communities where students and teachers live and learn together, but they are also public instruments, and political symbols.  They are public instruments because we expect schools to be instruments for socializing children into our particular culture.  They are political symbols because they symbolize what we feel is important for human development.  Embedded in the procedures advocated to make public education more accountable are beliefs about how society ought to work, beliefs that are political in nature. 

Becher and Maclure (1978) warned against engaging in the accountability debate without recognizing its political nature.  Later scholars noted that “both the content and form of schooling is determined through the conflicts and coalitions found at the core of local, state and national political systems” (Mitchell, 1995, p. 166).  Reflecting this, Torres (1995) argued that theories of state “define the ‘real’ problems of education . . . [and] underpin, justify, and guide the educational diagnoses and proposed solutions” (Torres, 1995, p. 255). 

Manzer (1994) contends that education in Canada has been “dominated by liberal conceptions of the purpose of education, liberal understandings of the proper criteria of political evaluation, and liberal principles of state organization” (p. 255). Yet, he notes, liberalism has changed in significant ways over the last 150 years, dividing into distinctive and even opposing doctrines that changed and expanded the purposes of education, and the problems that schools were expected to resolve.  In addition, Manzer notes, the interpretations of (and importance given to) each of the criteria used to judge the goodness of public schools have changed over time.  Those criteria are justice, legitimacy, effectiveness and efficiency.

…. schools are human communities where students and teachers live and learn together, but they are also public instruments, and political symbols. 

“… both the content and form of schooling is determined through the conflicts and coalitions found at the core of local, state and national political systems” (Mitchell, 1995, p. 166)

When public education was introduced in the middle of the 1800s, its purpose was to provide students with a basic, practical education.  Public schools were considered instrumental for shaping what Egerton Ryerson referred to as “the state of public mind” (cited by Manzer, 1994, p. 76), and educators were held accountable for developing a sense of patriotic virtue to ensure that students became absorbed into the common culture of the nation.


Table of Contents


Political Liberalsim
 

When public education was introduced in the middle of the 1800s, its purpose was to provide students with a basic, practical education.  Public schools were considered instrumental for shaping what Egerton Ryerson referred to as “the state of public mind” (cited by Manzer, 1994, p. 76), and educators were held accountable for developing a sense of patriotic virtue to ensure that students became absorbed into the common culture of the nation.  Denominational divisions were considered problematic because of the fear that they would “fragment enrolments and make public schools unacceptably expensive and inefficient” (p. 257).  Debates centered on the role of the church in state education, and with the exception of Quebec and Newfoundland (who remained committed to non-secular education), schools were held accountable for delivering a uniform, non-denominational Christian education.  Furthermore, equal opportunity came to be interpreted as equal access to a common school program.  English was promoted as the language of choice, both because it was considered more democratic, as the language of the majority, and because it was less expensive, and therefore, more efficient (as defined by political liberals).

Providing students with a uniform education proved a daunting task given the number of school districts in existence at the time. In Saskatchewan alone, for example, there were 5,146 school districts in 1937 and urban-rural disparities meant that the educational differences within the
provinces were greater than those between them (Manzer, 1994, p. 88).

To address this, provinces developed a prescriptive syllabus of study, externally administered tests of achievement, and regular school inspections  As represented by the Reverend John Strachan, political liberals believed that the “efficiency and effectiveness of schools depended on the quality of their supervision” (Gidney, 1972, p. 34, cited by Manzer, 1994, p. 81).  Reflecting the philosophy of J. S. Mill, “Routine administration might be left in the hands of locally elected trustees … general supervision and regulation should belong to those most qualified: clergymen and professional men” (p. 81). 

Initially, educational legitimacy was maintained through the principle of majority rule both because it was more democratic and more cost efficient. Public schools were governed by councils of civic notables who received direction through the direction of superintendents of education.  Over time, however, the focus on economic efficiency increased, and school trustees increasingly became subject to the direction and regulation of departments of education.

Under a philosophy of political liberalism, public education became accountable for teaching “the political liberties of democratic citizens, and the political obligations of democratic subjects” (Manzer, 1994, p. 256).  To do this, it established a system of education that was uniform in its curricula and in its governance structures.  As industrialization made its way into Canadian society, however, the effectiveness and efficiency of uniformity as a method of achieving equal opportunity in education came under increasing criticism.


 
 
 
 
 

Providing students with a uniform education proved a daunting task given the number of school districts in existence at the time. In Saskatchewan alone, for example, there were 5,146 school districts in 1937 and urban-rural disparities meant that the educational differences within the 
provinces were greater than those between them (Manzer, 1994, p. 88).
 
 
 
 
 

To address this, provinces developed a prescriptive syllabus of study, externally administered tests of achievement, and regular school inspections) . . . general supervision and regulation should belong to those most qualified: clergymen and professional men” (Manzer, 1994, p. 81)
 

Over time, however, the focus on economic efficiency increased, and school trustees increasingly became subject to the direction and regulation of departments of education.


Table of Contents


Economic Liberalism
 
Early in the twentieth century, the purpose of education became refocused on meeting the requirements of industrial expansion and access to education became equated with access to jobs.  Equal opportunity, therefore, came to be understood as equal access to different educations, a view apparent in the Report of Canada’s Royal Commission on Industrial Training (1913) which stated:
Equality of opportunity, to mean anything real, must have regard to the varying needs, tastes, abilities, and after lives of the pupils … It must offer opportunities of education … which will serve the pupils not all the same thing, but which will serve them all alike in preparing them for the occupations which they are to follow, and the lives which they are to lead. (p. 3, cited by Manzer, 1994, p. 99)
Attention, therefore, came to be focused on a mass secondary education and on the provision of a general and vocational education in addition to the existing academic one.

When the purpose of education became centered on meeting the needs of industrial expansion, the educational infrastructure underwent significant change.  At first, separate vocational schools were developed.  Over time, however, they were replaced with composite schools that provided students with vocational options.  Although composite high schools provided rural students with equal opportunity to a vocational education, they often forced the closure of schools in smaller, homogeneous communities as school districts became amalgamated.  In this way, attempts to change education to meet the needs of an industrial economy, served to reduce equal access to schools that reflected the denominational and linguistic backgrounds of students.

Because larger school divisions were able to attract more highly qualified staff, the need for central regulation and control was reduced.  As well, a distinction was made between central policies that required “uniform local administration and hence close central superintendence and central policies that required adaptive local management” (Manzer, 1994, p. 261).  Although the provincial department of education was still considered ‘superior in knowledge’ and retained ultimate authority, school boards were given discretion in the implementation of local policies. 

To become more accountable under economic liberalism, education was restructured to provide students with equal educational opportunities regardless of their future life pursuits.  As a result, vocational and general schools were established in larger centers, and smaller school districts became reorganized into larger divisions. 

These divisions became accountable for administering local polices. As well, at the provincial level, accountability for policy formulation shifted from politicians to deputies and to assistant deputy ministers.

The focus on meeting the needs of students as perspective members of occupational classes helped to prepare the way for a philosophy of liberalism directed at meeting the complex needs of individual students.

Under a philosophy of political liberalism, public education became accountable for teaching “the political liberties of democratic citizens, and the political obligations of democratic subjects” (Manzer, 1994, p. 256). To do this, it established a system of education that was uniform in its curricula and in its governance structures. 
 

Early in the twentieth century, the purpose of education became refocused on meeting the requirements of industrial expansion and access to education became equated with access to jobs.  Equal opportunity, therefore, came to be understood as equal access to different educations.

Although composite high schools provided rural students with equal opportunity to a vocational education, they often forced the closure of schools in smaller, homogeneous communities as school districts became amalgamated.  In this way, attempts to change education to meet the needs of an industrial economy, served to reduce equal access to schools that reflected the denominational and linguistic backgrounds of students. 
 
 
 
 

The focus on meeting the needs of students as perspective members of occupational classes helped to prepare the way for a philosophy of liberalism directed at meeting the complex needs of individual students.


Table of Contents


Ethical Liberalsim
 
According to Manzer (1994), beginning in the 1930s, a commitment to individual development as the primary purpose of education arose in Canada.  As the Report of the Alberta Commission of Educational Planning (1972) stated, “The overarching goal [was] the cultivation and enrichment of all human beings” (p. 28).

Under an ethical liberal philosophy, public education became directed at developing the unique capacity of individual students.  This focus led to a recognition of the importance of the cultural community as the basis for individual development.  Consequently, educational policymakers began to view equal opportunity as equal  access to denominational and linguistic choice.  Public schools became accountable for developing a place for religion and language that was both appropriate to education and to the beliefs and needs of individual students.  Equal treatment, therefore, came to be understood as different treatment, and equal opportunity, the most important criterion of policy evaluation for ethical liberals, came to be defined in terms of diversity, not uniformity. 

When public education became accountable for meeting the unique needs of individual students, substantive changes were made to the curriculum, to pedagogy, and to governance structures.  As well, the aims of education were rewritten in policy documents to reflect a child-centered philosophy and the common curriculum was replaced with a spiral curriculum that identified holistic learning experiences that could be repeated over time, and at various levels of sophistication (Manzer, 1994, p. 149).  Composite high schools evolved into comprehensive high schools that allowed students to select from academic, vocational
and general options in a manner that did not define their future educational opportunities.

As programs of study became modified to meet individual needs, standardized tests lost their legitimacy, and were gradually replaced with teacher assessments of student progress.  Provincial examinations were dropped and credit systems with individual timetables and subject promotion replaced more occupational class-structured programs (p. 149).  The priority given to individualizing educational programs increased the level of professional autonomy for teachers.

Under ethical liberalism, democracy was advocated to be more than a political structure.  It was considered to be, “essentially and fundamentally a spirit, a frame of mind, a way of life based on the participation of the greatest number” (Quebec Royal Commission, 1966, p. 3, cited by Manzer, 1994, p. 150).  Democratic schools were expected to lead to a democratic society focused on human development.  Education was no longer expected to shape students into predetermined roles, but rather to “help the learner acquire the knowledge, skills, attitudes and interests that will enable him to constantly influence his environment and purposes” (Alberta Commission of Educational Planning, 1972, p. 28).  The role of the teacher became that of facilitator, and students were expected to accept responsibility for their own learning.  Furthermore, efficiency came to be measured not by cost, but by the extent to which “learning experiences relevant for persons in school [were maximized] within the cost constraints… established by a process of open, public deliberation” (p. 265).

Ethical liberalism, with its focus on a more participatory style of democracy, advocated grassroots involvement in policy decisions.  This was premised on the belief that people are not clients of the educational system, but rather citizens who own it.  If, as it was believed, “the most important decisions about education are made by young people in school with the advice and guidance of adults, particularly teachers and parents” Manzer, 1994, p. 264), then more decision making capacity had to be delegated to the local level.

Ethical liberalism reached its height in popularity in the 1960s and continues to be highly influential in education in the present day.  Under it, significant gains were made in accommodating social diversity. However, as Manzer (1994) notes, the removal of nondenominational Christianity from schools was rejected by some, and ethical liberal ideas about comprehensive education, ungraded schools and individual timetables never won popular public support. It was, however, “the failure to take the economic importance of education seriously” (p. 271) that proved most damaging to ethical liberals, and that contributed to the emergence of a new and influential liberal ideology.


 
 

Public schools became accountable for developing a place for religion and language that was both appropriate to education and to the beliefs and needs of individual students.  Equal treatment, therefore, came to be understood as different treatment, and equal opportunity, the most important criterion of policy evaluation for ethical liberals, came to be defined in terms of diversity, not uniformity. 
 
 
 
 

As programs of study became modified to meet individual needs, standardized tests lost their legitimacy, and were gradually replaced with teacher assessments of student progress. 
 
 
 

Education was no longer expected to shape students into predetermined roles, but rather to “help the learner acquire the knowledge, skills, attitudes and interests that will enable him to constantly influence his environment and purposes” (Alberta Commission of Educational Planning, 1972, p. 28).
 
 
 
 

Ethical liberalism, with its focus on a more participatory style of democracy, advocated grassroots involvement in policy decisions.  This was premised on the belief that people are not clients of the educational system, but rather citizens who own it.
 

If . . . “the most important decisions about education are made by young people in school with the advice and guidance of adults, particularly teachers and parents” Manzer, 1994, p. 264)), then more decision making capacity had to be delegated to the local level.


Table of Contents


Technological Liberalsim
 
Beginning in the 1960s, and continuing into the present day, concerns over spiraling public debt, unrelenting unemployment, and the increasing ability of transnational corporations to relocate globally, renewed interest in the instrumental value of education as the means for national economic health.  In order to remain competitive, it was argued, Canadian education would have to become be the best in the world.  Reflecting this, the attainment of educational excellence has become the central problem identified in recent educational documents (cf. Schweitzer, 1995). 

For technological liberals, public schools must be held accountable for providing students with an education that will serve them all equally in their future pursuit of employment.  Consequently, public schools are increasingly being held accountable for teaching a common body of requisite knowledge, and equal opportunity is becoming defined as equal access to the same education.  A curriculum focused on content lends itself more easily to measurement and is, therefore, more efficient as defined by technological liberals.  Therefore, accountability is increasingly being linked to performance indicators and marks on standardized tests.  As the Radwanski (1987) report stated it, “There can be no effective pursuit of excellence in educational outcomes without meaningful accountability, and there can be no meaningful accountability without measures of accomplishment” (p. 57).

Although technological liberals tolerate choice and diversity to accommodate individual interests and needs, they warn against social fragmentation.  Unlike ethical liberals who made significant strides in accommodating social diversity, technological liberals typically ignore or dismiss it (Manzer, 1994, p. 218).  Indeed,  diversity and choice are often asked to “co-exist with requirements which ensure that certain standards are met and that certain curricular elements form a part of every child’s basic education (British Columbia Royal Commission on Education, 1988, p. 9).  In this view, schools are to be ultimately accountable for delivering a common education that is made available to all. 

In a system of public education that is held accountable for meeting the needs of international competition, ultimate knowledge is assumed to be located centrally, at either the provincial or the federal level.  For technological liberals, this shift in the location of knowledge legitimizes a shift in educational governance away from policy interdependence toward policy guidance, or even administrative agency.  Technological liberals argue that provincial educational authorities should make policy decisions regarding the “overall resource allocation to public education, content of the common or core curriculum, provincial standards of educational achievement, and mechanisms of accountability” (Manzer, 1994, p. 230).  Management, on the other hand, should be “decentralized to school boards, school councils and teaching staffs, while ensuring that accountability to the policy-determining center is maintained” (p. 230). Furthermore, technological liberals believe both provincial and local policy communities should be enlarged to include the broader interests of society, particularly the interest of business (cf. Economic Council of Canada, 1992; Schweitzer, 1995). 


Beginning in the 1960s, and continuing into the present day, concerns over  spiraling public debt, unrelenting unemployment, and the increasing ability of transnational corporations to relocate globally, renewed interest in the instrumental value of education as the means for national economic health.
 
 

 . . . public schools are increasingly being held accountable for teaching a common body of requisite knowledge, and equal opportunity is becoming defined as equal access to the same education.
 

Although technological liberals tolerate choice and diversity to accommodate individual interests and needs, they warn against social fragmentation. Unlike ethical liberals who made significant strides in accommodating social diversity, technological liberals typically ignore or dismiss it (Manzer, 1994, p. 218)
 
 

In a system of public education that is held accountable for meeting the needs of international competition, ultimate knowledge is assumed to be located centrally, at either the provincial or the federal level.


Table of Contents


Summary
 
As each new genre of liberalism emerged, it changed the purposes of education, and thus what education was to be held accountable for, how it was to be held accountable, and to whom.  This in turn, led to the promotion of different theories of learning, and consequently to changes in curricula, pedagogy, and governance structures.  The suggestion that “accountability’s fundamental purpose is to improve education” (McEwen, Fagan, Earl, Hodgkinson & Maheu, 1995, p. 99) fails to recognize the extent to which notions of improvement and education are themselves dependent upon visions of the public good.  Increasing standardized testing improves accountability as defined by technological liberals but falls far short of an accountable education as envisioned by ethical liberals.  For ethical liberals, the trend toward uniformity and increased control makes education less responsive to individual student needs, and less able to involve the grassroots in important policy decisions. As each new genre of liberalism emerged, it changed the purposes of education, and thus what education was to be held accountable for

Increasing standardized testing improves accountability as defined by technological liberals but falls far short of an accountable education as envisioned by ethical liberals.


Table of Contents


Part III: Principles of Accountability
 
Although attention to the political dimension of accountability reforms helps clarify what an accountable school would look like from the perspective of different political ideologies, it fails to provide essential insights into what is meant by the idea of accountability itself.  For that, the development of more precise definitions, or an investigation into the etymology of accountability, may be less useful than a clarification of key principles.  Lello (1979) recognized the need to develop principles when he noted, “There are discernible principles which may be deduced from the different approaches” that have the potential for providing a “common basis for contrasting action” (p. 3). 

For this report, three principles of accountability are identified and discussed.  These principles, disclosure, transparency and redress, provide a way to organize accountability conceptually.  In addition, a better understanding of their strengths and limitations can inform our understanding of the strengths and limitations of accountability.  Originally take from a report of the Auditor General of Canada (1996) these principles are also referred to in documents related to social and economic policy (cf. Jenkins & Goetz, 1999; Vichwanath & Kaufmann, 1999) where they are associated with the democratic right of citizens to observe and be represented by their governments.

In a democracy, accountability “forms the basis of a relationship between society and its members, between those who govern and those who consent to be governed” (Simey, 1985, p. 20).  It has been described as the “solid plank on which our whole political system rests” (p. 17) and as the “administrative cement in a democratic society” (Lello, 1979, p. 10).  In democracies, those chosen to represent ‘we the people’ are expected to be accountable to them.  As one document expressed it,

Accountability flows from the notion of ‘government for and by the people.’ It supports the people in exerting influence over matters of interest to them. In its simplest form it calls upon those individuals who have been provided authority (the government), to answer to the people for the manner in which they have discharged their responsibility. In this way accountability supports the community in meeting its needs through its government, and it prevents the abuse of power by those within government. (Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada [DIAND], 1996, pp. 2-3)
It is increasingly recognized that the ability of citizens to scrutinize their governments is an essential component of accountability (Jenkins & Goetz, 1999).

The education literature provides little explicit discussion of accountability principles.  They are not commonly included in the index of books, and even when implied in the text, are not typically referred to as such.  For example, Cibulka and Derlin (1995) refer to the work of Glasser (1972) to observe that “Accountability involves several loosely connected strands: disclosure concerning the product or service being provided; product or performance testing; and redress for false representation or poor services” [italics added] (p. 480).  Their research, however, is confined to performance reporting as a method of disclosure.  They do not inquire into the relative merits of the idea of disclosure itself.

Although attention to the political dimension of accountability reforms helps reveal what an accountable school would look like from the perspective of different political ideologies, it fails to provide essential insights into what is meant by the idea of accountability itself.
 
 
 
 
 
 

For this report, three principles of accountability are identified and discussed.  These principles, disclosure, transparency and redress, provide a way to organize accountability conceptually. 


Table of Contents


Dislcosure
 
Disclosure is the principle that most accountability procedures in education can be traced back to.  For example, the definition of accountability adopted by Ontario’s Education Quality and Accountability Office [EQAO], which is taken from the Ontario Royal Commission on Learning (1995), states that,
Accountability in the education system means that information has to be available to the public, to taxpayers, and to parents, in a form that allows them to have reasonable expectations of the system, to make reasonable judgments about how well the system has performed, and to know who is responsible if they are not satisfied (EQAO, 2000).
This definition reflects that part of accountability defined as the “obligation to render an account.”  It is also reflected in the Saskatchewan Crown Investments Review Commission (1982) definition of accountability as the,
obligation to disclose to the public, through government and the legislature, the degree of success or failure in achieving their mandates… it includes financial disclosure of operating costs, balance sheets, and capital decisions… [and] qualitative performance evaluations with respect to mandates. (p. 15) 
According to the Commission, accountability requires the disclosure of summative evaluations related to organizational success or failure in achieving mandates.

The problems inherent in the idea of accountability can be anticipated in the definition of disclosure which is, “to remove cover from, expose to view, make known, reveal” (Sykes, 1976, p. 297).  Since few are willing to expose themselves unconditionally, particularly if what they have to expose is not fully satisfactory, or can later be used against them, it is easy to see the problems this principle presents.  When career interests are at stake, or when large amounts of money are involved, a complete and honest disclosure of information is not assured.  The list of recent example, from both business and government continues to grow (i.e. Enron, WorldCom).


 
 
 
 

The problems inherent in the idea of accountability can be anticipated in the definition of disclosure which is, “to remove cover from, expose to view, make known, reveal” (Sykes, 1976, p. 297).  Since few are willing to expose themselves unconditionally, particularly if what they have to expose is not fully satisfactory, or can later be used against them, it is easy to see the problems this principle presents.  When career interests are at stake, or when large amounts of money are involved, a complete and honest disclosure of information is not assured.


Table of Contents


Disclosure in Accounting
 
It is perhaps not surprising that disclosure is of interest to those in the accounting profession.  The audited statement is a primary disclosure instrument, intended to provide an honest overview of an organization’s financial status, as well as its deficiencies and irregularities.  Audits indicate the extent to which organizational policies and procedures reflect government regulations in such diverse areas as the environment and equity in hiring practices.  As well as analyzing and interpreting financial data, accountants verify the accuracy of financial reports, check for deficiencies and abnormalities in the financial operation of organizations, and ensure that government legislation and regulations are adhered to.  Therefore, the problems of disclosure identified in the accounting literature have the potential to inform those involved in the disclosure of information in education.

From early on, the accounting profession recognized the limitations of the audited statement. For example, in 1883, the editor of The Accountant, expressed dissatisfaction with the U.S. audit certificate, and noted two fundamental problems.  The first is its limited ability to provide a comprehensive and honest review of the fiscal health of organizations for the following reasons: (1) audits are only undertaken once a year and thus provide only a quick snapshot of the organization at a particular point in time, (2) they are done quickly and lack depth, (3) they can only verify the facts put before them, they cannot investigate them, (4) they must satisfy the needs of directors with a vested interest in noting only the best side of affairs, and (5) they must satisfy the needs of shareholders who naturally wish to be reassured that their investments are secure.  Audits, therefore, are limited because they lack depth, and because those who commission them, and those who undertake them, often have a vested interest in making them appear as positive as possible.

The second problem is that although the audit certificate is intended to provide reassurance that the organization is profitable and that it has met all legal requirements, in practice it is often used to predict future success.  Predicting the future on the basis of the past is difficult particularly during times of uncertainty and rapid change.  As early as 1914, Dickinson pointed out,

It should be clear, therefore, from the above considerations that any estimate of future earnings must necessarily depend upon so many contingencies that it would hardly seem desirable that it should be put forth without calling specific attention to the assumptions involved; and an estimate with such qualification attached would hardly be of much service to the promoter and would not be incorporated into the prospectus. (pp. 226-227; cited in Brief, 1986, p. 16)
Brief (1986) noted that “many of the numbers in financial statements are based on estimates of uncertain future events” (p. 17) and that “By assuming that the future is known with certainty (or by de-emphasizing and minimizing the importance of uncertainty), accountants have eliminated, or at least have obscured, that which they set out to measure” (p. 18).  Brief emphasized the extent to which issues of uncertainty have remained unresolved over time, often dropping out of sight as attention is focussed instead on procedure and technique. 

The notion of “true and fair” has also been raised as an area of concern in the audit. For example, writing from a British perspective, Cowan (1996) wondered how much longer accountants could remain content knowing that, (1) a profit and loss account is only technically true and fair, (2) a balance sheet does not really provide a true and fair statement of resources, (3) comparative figures over the years have no regard for inflation, (4) company external reports use widely divergent practices in asset valuation, depreciation accounting, tax accounting, accounting for long term leases, group accounting, etc., (5) technically true information is issued that does not reveal the true profitability of alternative investments, and so may result in the misdirection of personal and community economic resources (Cowan, 1996, p. 794).

Those critical of the accounting profession observe that certain kinds of information are typically omitted from audited statements.  Although accountants are required to disclose information related to the financial well being of organizations, and their adherence to government regulations and legislation, information relating to the negative consequences of activities is routinely omitted.  These negative consequences are referred to as externalities by economists, and include such things as the “destruction of habitat, famine and abject poverty, involuntary unemployment, destruction of the ozone layer, industrial conflict… stress related illness, violence, acid rain and exploitation” (Gray, Owen, & Adams, 1996, p. 1).  Although these costs are often not absorbed by the organization, their cost to society and to the environment can be substantial.  A criticism of traditional accounting is that the individuals and organizations enjoying the benefits of productivity are not required to disclose the total cost of those activities, particularly as they relate to the wider society.

Advocates of corporate social accounting (SCA) argue that by failing to disclose negative environmental and social effects, and by treating them as external to the decision making process, accountants are making moral judgments.  They are implying that social exploitation and environmental degradation are neither their concern, nor the concern of the corporation .  Reflecting this, Gray et al. (1996) observed,

Practically (and more fundamentally) there is something both bizarre and offensive about constructs as ubiquitous as western economics and western business dominating the lives of all living things but assessing success in a manner which excludes most of the factors by which the quality of life might normally and reasonably be judged. (p. 2)
Furthermore, proponents of SCA point out that corporate success is less deserving of admiration when all the costs of doing business are factored in, which, most often they are not. 

The audited statement is a primary disclosure instrument . . .  From early one, the accounting profession recognized [its] limitations:
 (1) audits are only undertaken once a year and thus provide only a quick snapshot of the organization at a particular point in time, (2) they are done quickly and lack depth, (3) they can only verify the facts put before them, they cannot investigate them, (4) they must satisfy the needs of directors with a vested interest in noting only the best side of affairs, and (5) they must satisfy the needs of shareholders who naturally wish to be reassured that their investments are secure.  Audits, therefore, are limited because they lack depth, and because those who commission them, and those who undertake them, often have a vested interest in making them appear as positive as possible. 

Brief (1986) noted that “many of the numbers in financial statements are based on estimates of uncertain future events” (p. 17) and that “By assuming that the future is known with certainty (or by de-emphasizing and minimizing the importance of uncertainty), accountants have eliminated, or at least have obscured, that which they set out to measure” p. 18). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Brief emphasized the extent to which issues of uncertainty have remained unresolved over time, often dropping out of sight as attention is focussed instead on procedure and technique. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Advocates of corporate social accounting (SCA) argue that by failing to disclose negative environmental and social effects, and by treating them as external to the decision making process, accountants are making moral judgments.  They are implying that social exploitation and environmental degradation are neither their concern, nor the concern of the corporation).


Table of Contents


Limitations of Disclosure

It is Partial
 
Disclosure is partial.  For reasons of practicality and ethics, it is never possible to disclose everything.  There are typically many ‘externalities’ omitted from the information disclosed.  It should be remembered that those who live within organizations often have a vested interest in ensuring that the information disclosed reflects a positive image.  In addition, those who hold formal power  can focus attention away from themselves by disclosing particular types of information.  For example, in education, performance reports tend to occur at the school level (where many other factors influence the results).  Other levels of the educational infrastructure are often not subjected to the same level of scrutiny. 

Furthermore, the type of information disclosed tends to be that which is most readily available and most easily measured, not that which provides the most comprehensive and complete overview of the organization.  As Linn (2000) noted with reference to standardized testing, test score results can be altered in various ways, they have limited value when they are used for accountability purposes, and  if all the contingencies are factored in, they are unsuitable measures of system accountability (cf. Linn, 2000).

It should be remembered that those who live within organizations often have a vested interest in ensuring that the information disclosed reflects a positive image.  In addition, those who hold formal power  can focus attention away from themselves by disclosing particular types of information.

Furthermore, the type of information disclosed tends to be that which is most readily available and most easily measured, not that which provides the most comprehensive and complete overview of the organization.


Table of Contents


It is Not Explanatory
 
The act of disclosing information may not, in itself, inform.  For example, in education, externally developed standardized test scores are currently the most popular form of disclosure.  However, test results do explain what specifically needs to be changed, or why the results came in the way they did.  Because of this, they may be unable to inform instruction in any substantive way.  In other words, external testing fails to provide teachers with specific information related to why scores are low (or high) in relation to other regions, and why they should or should not be a concern.  As Majone (1987) notes, why is an important question for policy formation, and it is important for teachers and schools who are often expected to reason from effects to causes in order to develop plans for change.  Ultimately, changes are made by people, not test scores. For example, in education, externally developed standardized test scores are currently the most popular form of disclosure.  However, test results do explain what specifically needs to be changed, or why the results came in the way they did.  Because of this, they may be unable to inform instruction in any substantive way. 


Table of Contents


It Reflects Values
 
In his discussion of accountability in government, Aucoin (1997) notes a fundamental and inescapable flaw  – the failure to distinguish “between conclusions that can be reached on the basis of professional audits of financial transactions and the conclusions that can be reached on the basis of applied social science studies of management practices, program effectiveness and policy outcomes” (p. 12).  Although the audit profession can develop standards for measuring results with some degree of precision, the same cannot be said of the social sciences.  Consequently, assertions respecting the shortcomings of government should not be regarded as resulting from objective audits, but rather as resulting from different interpretations of government (p. 12).  It is, therefore, important to uncover the fundamental values that are to be served by adherence to specific policies, and to provide a public statement of the extent to which these policies will secure an accountable organization.  Similarly, Majone (1987) notes that techniques of analysis, and issues are rarely either purely technical or purely political.  It is important for the customer to understand the assumptions policy models are based on (p. 11). Although the audit profession can develop standards for measuring results with some degree of precision, the same cannot be said of the social sciences.  Consequently, assertions respecting the shortcomings of government should not be regarded as resulting from objective audits, but rather as resulting from different interpretations of government (p. 12).  It is, therefore, important to uncover the fundamental values that are to be served by adherence to specific policies, and to provide a public statement of the extent to which these policies will secure an accountable organization.


Table of Contents


It is Not Reliably Predictive
 
One of the greatest criticisms of disclosure in the accounting literature is that although it was never intended to have predictive value, in practice, it is used for that purpose.  Audits, like other types of disclosure information, provide only a snapshot of an organization at a specific point in time.  It is not difficult to think of many organizations once hailed for their excellence now fallen on bad times (i.e. Nortel, Enron). Audits, like other types of disclosure information, provide only a snapshot of an organization at a specific point in time.  It is not difficult to think of many organizations once hailed for their excellence now fallen on bad times (i.e. Nortel, Enron.)


Table of Contents


It Occurs After the Fact
 
From early on, the disclosure of information has been expected to act as a corrective.  It is assumed that if an individual or organization is required to disclose information related to their performance, the mere act of disclosure will ensure their behaviour changes.  It is commonly assumed, for example that, the possibility of sanctions (not getting re-elected) will pose enough of a threat to ensure agents will act in the best interests of those they are expected to represent.  As Pitkin (1967) points out, however, “under this definition… a representative who acted in a completely selfish and irresponsible manner could not be criticized as long as he let himself be removed from office” (p. 58).  The mere act of disclosing information is not enough to ensure accountability.  A government department would not be considered accountable if it was unable to account for several million dollars worth of taxpayers’ money, even if a public account was provided.  Furthermore, any damage may be irreparable.  The millions of dollars wasted in a government department are gone; the student who spent a year in an ineffective learning environment has lost a year of learning; and the child who drank tainted water has already died. The mere act of disclosing information is not enough to ensure accountability.  A government department would not be considered accountable if was unable to account for several million dollars worth of taxpayers’ money, even if a public account was provided


Table of Contents


Transparency
 
Disclosure information, while an important part of accountability, is not sufficient on its own.  Increasingly, calls have been made to increase transparency in organizations, particularly during times when organizational or governmental corruption has occurred.  The notion of accountability in democracy is closely associated with the idea of transparency.  For example, the separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial systems of government was conceived of to increase transparency as a way to reduce the incidence of corrupt practices (Held, 1996, p. 101).

Unlike disclosure, transparency focuses attention on what goes on during life in organizations.  In an educational context, it directs attention more specifically on the quality of life for those who spend their days in schools.  Therefore, it has greater potential for informing parents about how well their children are progressing.  This may be considered more valuable for some parents than scores on standardized tests of achievement.  It may also be more useful for informing agents (i.e. teachers) on how they ought to act, and for providing them with specific information for improvement. 

The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines transparent as “easily seen through (of motive, quality, etc.)… evident, obvious (transparent sincerity); easily understood” (Sykes, 1976, p. 1233).  Transparency is defined as “Being transparent… Picture, inscription, etc., made visible by light behind it” (p. 1233).  When used with reference to organizations, the idea of transparency emphasizes the notion of holding organizations up to enable their day-to-day activities can be observed.  This is reflected in a quote from Brandeis (1913) who noted, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant; electric light is the best policeman” (cited in Savage, 1981, p. 2).  Unlike disclosure, which involves specific types of data, and which occurs only at fixed points in time, transparency is on-going and reflects a belief that citizens have a right to audit the actions of their governments as well as the consequences of those actions. 

One way to increase transparency is to increase simplicity and standardization because it allows irregularities to be spotted more easily.  A review of mechanisms developed to reduce corruption in OECD member countries, uncovered an emphasis in two areas: (1) standardization and transparency in public procurement, and (2) transparent, open and standardized procedures for recruitment of public officials (OECD, 1999, p. 20).  Simplicity and standardization are promoted for their ability to increase transparency in organizations.

Concerns over transparency are evident in the literature on mixed corporations and joint ventures. Here, transparency is viewed as a necessary but problematic concept. On the one hand, transparency is necessary if organizations are to successfully combine their efforts to achieve common goals.  On the other hand, too much transparency is viewed as potentially reducing the ability of organizations to compete successfully.  In mixed public/private corporations, for example, the requisite level of transparency demanded of public organizations may conflict with the need for confidentiality to ensure competition (Aucoin,1997; Sarkar & Vicq, 1992). 

Problems develop when exact data and information are required for effective decision-making, but when too much information may give one partner a future competitive edge.  As scholars involved in researching international collaborative efforts have discovered, transparency can be a double-edged sword.  In a competitive environment, the need for transparency must be balanced with the legitimate need for privacy. Recognizing this, some Japanese organizations have devised a “collaborative membrane,” in which a group of individuals decide (1) what information will be shared, what will remain confidential, and (2) how confidential information 
can be protected from “bleeding through” to partners (Hamel, 1991). 

Communication problems serve as barriers to transparency, particularly when ventures span more than one country or culture. With reference to joint ventures between American and Japanese companies, Hamel (1991) noted that “context dependent knowledge (principles of industrial relations in Japan) is inherently less transparent than context-free knowledge (for example, the principles of the transistor)” (p. 94).  In business, it is generally accepted that knowledge is power, and that essential knowledge is context dependent. This becomes particularly apparent when individuals from different cultures (including different organizational cultures) are required to work together. Hamel observed that “where clannishness is high, opportunities for access will be limited, and transparency low” (p. 95). Transparency, therefore, both requires trust, and increases it.

Transparency through participation is viewed as a way to promote a feeling of trust and legitimacy in government.  In addition to preventing, or at least reducing corruption, transparency is expected to improve government by increasing citizen participation.  The Africa Governance Forum II (AGFII, 1998) reflected this view when it stated,

A government can only render effective services if it endeavours to address the needs and interests of the citizenry in an open and transparent manner.  This way of conducting government business builds confidence and trust between the public sector and the public that is served.  When information and feedback is provided to citizens it prompts or enables individuals or groupings in society to hold the elected officials and public officials answerable for the effective execution of responsibilities.  Without these inputs from civil society government cannot modify policies or adapt strategies to the rapidly changing requirements of citizens.  (AGFII, 1998)
Thus, transparency is viewed as an important way to ensure access to government and to encourage citizen involvement in the governance process.  It is also considered a major factor for developing greater social and political stability. Citizens who understand the rationale behind the distribution of resources, as well as the process used to chose among various economic and social options, are considered less likely to rebel against their governments.  Furthermore, it is believed that “A transparent electoral process increases the likelihood that election results will be readily accepted by all competing parties” (UNSIA, 2000, p. 3). 

There has also been a trend to solicit participation in order to increase transparency in more stable and developed countries. Here, participation is viewed as a component of transparency, particularly in areas (such as the environment) where decisions may have a substantial impact on the broader society, and where public trust may be required for public acceptance of the decisions made.  For example, a utility in British Columbia has formed a committee in which the utility itself has only minority representation.  The committee has been granted power and autonomy in the decision making process, thus elevating their involvement to the partnership or even delegated power stage of Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation (Continuing Legal Education Society of BC, p. 9.1.06). 

In an educational context, it directs attention more specifically on the quality of life for those who spend their days in schools.  Therefore, it has greater potential for informing parents about how well their children are progressing.  This may be considered more valuable for some parents than scores on standardized tests of achievement.  It may also be more useful for informing agents (i.e. teachers) on how they ought to act, and for providing them with specific information for improvement. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

When used with reference to organizations, the idea of transparency emphasizes the notion of holding organizations up to enable their day-to-day activities can be observed.  This is reflected in a quote from Brandeis (1913) who noted, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant; electric light is the best policeman” (cited in Savage, 1981, p. 2). 
 
 
 
 

One way to increase transparency is to increase simplicity and standardization because it allows irregularities to be spotted more easily. 
 
 
 
 

Communication problems serve as barriers to transparency, particularly when ventures span more than one country or culture.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Transparency through participation is viewed as a way to promote a feeling of trust and legitimacy in government.  In addition to preventing, or at least reducing corruption, transparency is expected to improve government by increasing citizen participation. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

There has also been a trend to solicit participation in order to increase transparency in more stable and developed countries. Here, participation is viewed as a component of transparency, particularly in areas (such as the environment) where decisions may have a substantial impact on the broader society, and where public trust may be required for public acceptance of the decisions made. 


Table of Contents


Limitations of Transparency
 
Even more than disclosure, transparency is situated within the fundamental conflict between the right to privacy and the need for access to information.  Furthermore, because transparency requires participation, it is also subject to the challenges that citizen participation presents.  In this way, transparency is the most problematic principle of accountability to achieve in practice. 

In organizations like education, there is a legitimate need to protect individual privacy, dignity and respect. 

Consequently, transparency, the concept most centred on openness and accessibility, is also the one most capable of infringing upon personal and professional rights.  Indeed, concerns related to privacy continue to grow as technology offers increasingly sophisticated methods of surveillance (Cavoukian, 1998). 

Transparency requires mutual and reciprocal relationships, and directs attention more specifically on the development of a shared commitment to the values and goals of the organization.  Participation, however, has never been an easy concept.  Many citizens do not wish to participate in the education process, choosing instead to leave decision making to experts, or to others more inclined to be involved.  In addition, those who do chose to participate do not necessarily represent the interests of the majority.  Their views may not be shared by others, and indeed, increased participation can lead to increased conflict. 

A high degree of transparency also requires that participants develop a knowledge base that will enable them to understand not only what decisions have been made, but why they have been made, and what the likely consequences of those decisions will be.  This may require an outlay of resources, and a commitment to education from those most at risk of losing power in a more participatory arrangement.  In addition, even if participants are well informed, there is no guarantee that better decision making will result.  It is not known if the ‘democratic will’ is wise and good, or if democratic reason will prevail (Held, 1996, p. 273).  Furthermore, increased democratic participation may result in increased ‘bureaucracy, red tape, surveillance, and excessive infringement of individual options’ (p. 273).


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Even more than disclosure, transparency is situated within the fundamental conflict between the right to privacy and the need for access to information.  Furthermore, because transparency requires participation, it is also subject to the challenges that citizen participation presents.  In this way, transparency is the most problematic principle of accountability to achieve in practice.
 
 
 

Transparency requires mutual and reciprocal relationships, and directs attention more specifically on the development of a shared commitment to the values and goals of the organization.


Table of Contents


Redress
 
Representative democracy stems from the idea of government by and for the people.  It conceives of democracies as self-governing institutions and accepts Aristotle’s notion of politics as free citizens deliberating on how to organize their lives together.  The role of accountability in democracy is to ensure that governments remain responsive to the needs, interests and/or desires of ‘the people.’  However, the window of observation that disclosure and transparency provide are meaningless if not accompanied with genuine opportunities for redress.  What is frequently overlooked in accountability discussions is that frustration over a lack of accountability can often be traced to a lack of opportunities for redress.  In the section that follows, redress is discussed with reference to two closely related concepts: responsiveness and consent. 

In a democracy, representatives are expected to be responsive to those they represent.  Responsiveness, however, is a difficult concept for there is often no agreement on who representatives should be most responsive to, or for what.  Like representation, responsiveness exists on a continuum, with the representative who acts independent of citizens at one extreme, and the representative who obtains input from all constituents at the other.  In the case of the former, “the realm of representation [responsiveness] is abandoned altogether as the ‘expert’ decides technical questions in much the way a parent would decide for a child” (Pitkin, 1967, p. 210).  In the case of the latter, “substantive acting for others becomes impossible, and a theorist must either fall back on other views of representation [responsiveness] or declare the concept an illusion” (p. 210).  Yet, as Pitkin notes, a representative of people (rather than interests), must not be consistently at odds with their wishes. 

Pitkin (1967) identifies times when the representative may be justified in making decisions without contacting constituents or, in acting against their wishes. This may occur when it is believed that constituents have interest that can be determined externally and when this interest is actually a ‘true interest’ of the people.  For example, when a representative is viewed as possessing superior knowledge, wisdom, and reason, citizen input is less likely. Conversely, if citizens are considered knowledgeable, their input is considered desirable.  If a “theorist sees both the representative and constituents as relatively equal in capacity, wisdom and information, the more likely he is to recommend that the views of the constituents be taken into account” (p. 211). The perceived location of knowledge and capacity, therefore, is critical to the idea of participation. 

The representative who fails to consider the wishes of constituents cannot be viewed as being responsive to those wishes.  Furthermore, the representative who uses no judgment, but simply follows the popular wishes of the masses, is not being responsive to their long-term needs.  At both extremes opportunities for redress disappear.

Citizen Consent

 In a representative democracy it is commonly held that both the governors and the bureaucracy must be responsive to the ‘will of the people.’  Simey (1985) considers consent to be the cornerstone of accountability in representative democracies.  As she (1985) observed,

In a democracy it is only by the consent of the people that authority to govern can be delegated.  And that consent is given on one condition that all those who then act on our behalf will hold themselves accountable for their stewardship.  This holds good whether they be elected members or officials. (p. 16)
It is believed that democratic control is established on the basis that citizens are free to withdraw their consent if they believe their interests are not being met.  They are entitled to remove officials from public office if they believe their rights have not been protected.

In the education literature, redress is often conceived of as sanctions and rewards rather than as the right to a grievance process.  As Hannon (1983) noted, “the accountability debate in education has omitted an important dimension, namely the availability of formal avenues of redress for aggrieved individuals or groups” (p. 225).  This failure to provide effective mechanisms for redress has undoubtedly contributed to the calls for greater accountability.  Still, “few schools advertise their grievance and redress procedures, or encourage parents to use them… [and] even if they do exist, this does not guarantee that they are effective from the parent’s point of view” (National Consumer Council [NCC], 1993, cited in Moore, 1994, p. 5). The lack of attention to redress in the discussions surrounding education led Hannon (1983) to note the “need for more debate and research on… efforts to promote more  democratic structures and new consultation and grievance procedures for schools” (Hannon, 1983, p. 224).

It is likely that attention to redress is often overlooked because it is not required until after a problem has arisen.  However, because a lack of adequate redress can create significant problems for schools, much more attention needs to be directed in this area.


The role of accountability in democracy is to ensure that governments remain responsive to the needs, interests and/or desires of ‘the people.’
 

What is frequently overlooked in accountability discussions is that frustration over a lack of accountability can often be traced to a lack of opportunities for redress.
 
 
 
 
 
 

For example, when a representative is viewed as possessing superior knowledge, wisdom, and reason, citizen input is less likely. Conversely, if citizens are considered knowledgeable, their input is considered desirable.  If a “theorist sees both the representative and constituents as relatively equal in capacity, wisdom and information, the more likely he is to recommend that the views of the constituents be taken into account” (Pitkin, 1967, p. 211) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

In a representative democracy it is commonly held that both the governors and the bureaucracy must be responsive to the ‘will of the people’
 
 
 
 

 In the education literature, redress is often conceived of as sanctions and rewards rather than as the right to a grievance process.  As Hannon (1983) noted, “the accountability debate in education has omitted an important dimension, namely the availability of formal avenues of redress for aggrieved individuals or groups” (p. 225).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

It is likely that attention to redress is often overlooked because it is not required until after a problem has arisen.  However, because a lack of adequate redress can create significant problems for schools, much more attention needs to be directed in this area. 


Table of Contents


Part IV: Implications for Practice
 
Principles provide a way to add substance to a concept.  When placed at the centre of an accountability framework, they provide specific ideas to link accountability procedures to.  In this way, they provide a focus for individuals who have been assigned the task of ensuring accountability in organizations.  They also provide a way to test the conceptual integrity of accountability procedures, both those already in place, and those being contemplated.  Furthermore, when accountability procedures are placed within the context of the two liberal visions that presently dominate education in Canada, it becomes easier to understand the philosophical and political dimension of particular reforms.  This provides a way to view accountability as an idea that requires procedures, rather than as a technical procedure that is neither linked directly to the idea of accountability, or to a particular political or educational philosophy (See: APPENDIX A).

Although a discussion of elements of accountability was largely removed from this report, it is useful to remember that elements of accountability provide a link between principles, and procedures (See: Kuchapski, 2001).  Disclosure requires communication and assessment.  However, the kind assessment considered legitimate for evaluating student progress, has been the subject of heated debates.  Those who disagree with particular assessment strategies have been tempted to question whether or not accountability is good for schools.  For example, the headline on one educational journal reads: Is Greater Accountability for Schools a Good Thing for Kids? (Orbit, 2001)  This may be the wrong question.  A better question(s) would be, “Are the accountability procedures that have been implemented consistent with the philosophy of education we subscribe to, and are they improving (1) the disclosure information, (2) transparency of operations, and (3) opportunities for redress?”  In addition, one should direct these questions all levels of the educational infrastructure.

This research implies that those individuals who have been assigned the task of enhancing accountability need to develop an understanding of the principles and elements of accountability.  Such an understanding will help to ensure discussions of accountability in education stay focused on the need for accountability rather than on the rhetoric of a particular political ideology.

In addition, the research reported in this study suggests the need for educational leaders to develop an understanding of how accountability procedures fit into particular educational and political philosophies.  For example, they should know what assumptions are made (1) when teachers or school trustees are excluded from the policy making process, or (2) international testing is viewed as the best way to improve student success in schools.  Asking the right questions is an important part of ensuring accountability.

Principles provide a way to add substance to a concept.  When placed at the centre of an accountability framework, they provide specific ideas to link accountability procedures to.  In this way, they provide a focus for individuals who have been assigned the task of ensuring accountability in organizations.  They also provide a way to test the conceptual integrity of accountability procedures, both those already in place, and those being contemplated. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

This research implies that those individuals who have been assigned the task of enhancing accountability need to develop an understanding of the principles and elements of accountability.  Such an understanding will help to ensure discussions of accountability in education stay focused on the need for accountability rather than on the rhetoric of a particular political ideology.
 

Asking the right questions is an important part of ensuring accountability.


Table of Contents


Disclosure

1. What types of information should be disclosed to the public from:

2. Is the information disclosed easy to understand?  Is it relevant and necessary?  Does it emanate from all levels of the educational infrastructure and is it disclosed in a timely manner?  Is there a better way to disclose this information that would make it more accessible?

3. Does the information disclosed respect individual and profession rights to privacy?

4. Is the disclosure information clearly related to the particular goals, mandates, and philosophy of the organization?  Is this philosophy consistent and clear throughout the organization?

5. What has been omitted from disclosure documents?  Is the disclosure information used to divert attention away from other, more pressing matters?

6. To what extent, if any, can this information be used to predict future success?  What trends have developed?  What caveats should we be aware of?  Who is controlling the information being disclosed?  What are their biases and vested interests?

7. Is the information being disclosed what people want to know?


Table of Contents


Transparency

1. Are efforts being made to increase transparency at all levels of the educational infrastructure?  For example, how is information communicated through out the organization?

2. What procedures have been established to improve access to schools and classrooms?  What efforts have been made to ensure community, parental and student involvement in education?

3. Are the structures and functions of educational organizations clear?  For example, is an organization chart posted, and are the functions of all positions clearly understood and readily accessible?  Does it include information related to trustees and school councils?

4.  Is there a formal planning process, and is it documented and accessible?   Who is included in, and excluded from, this process?  What efforts have been made to be more inclusive?

5. Do parents and the community have access to curriculum and monthly plans.  Are they able to monitor student progress in relation to those plans?

6. Have the educational philosophies adhered to in the educational plans developed been clearly articulated?  Are program priorities related to the educational philosophy, and are budgeting and program priorities clearly articulated?


Table of Contents


Redress

1. Have systems of redress been established at all levels of the educational infrastructure, and are they clearly communicated to members of the community and the organization?

2. Is there a dispute resolution and an appeal mechanism in place to address administrative decisions throughout the organization?


Table of Contents


References

Alberta Education. (1995). Accountability in education: Policy framework, Edmonton, AB: Policy and Planning.

Alberta, Commission of Educational Planning, (1972). A choice of futures a future of choices. Edmonton, AB: Queen’s Printer for Alberta.

Aucoin, P. (1997, November 6). Accountability: The key to restoring public confidence in government [The Timlin Lecture]. Saskatoon, SK: University of Saskatchewan

Auditor General of Canada. (1996, November). Audit of First Nations Funding Arrangements.  [2002, May]

Becher, T., & Maclure, S. (1972). In T. Becher & S. Maclure (Eds.), Accountability in education (pp. 9-25). Atlantic Highlands, NJ: INFER.

Bobbitt, F. (1913). The supervision of big city schools: Some general principles of management applied to the problems of city school systems. Twelfth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 81-90), Bloomington, IL.

Bottani, N., & Tuijnman, A. (1994). International education indicators: Framework, development and interpretation. In Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Making education count (pp. 21-53). Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Brief, R. (1986). Corporate financial reporting and analysis in the early 1900s. New York: Garland Publishing.

British Columbia Royal Commission on Education. (1988). A legacy for learners: The report of the Royal Commission on Education [Sullivan Report]. Victoria, BC: Author.

Canada, Royal Commission on Industrial Training and Technical Education. (1913). Report, Ottawa, ON: King’s Printer.

Canadian Education Statistics Council [CESC] (1990). Pan Canadian Education Indicators Program. Toronto, ON: Author.

Cavoukian, A. (1998). Privacy enhancing technologies: Transforming the debate over identity. In C. J. Alexander & L. A. Pal (Eds.). Digital democracy: Policy and politics in the wired world. Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press

Chase, F. (1971). Problems of autonomy and accountability in government contracts for research and development in education. In Bruce L. R. Smith & D. C. Hague (Eds.), The dilemma of accountability in modern government: Independence vs control (pp. 103-117). New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Cibulka, J., & Derlin, R. L. (1995). State educational performance reporting policies in the US: Accountability’s many faces. International Journal of Educational Research, 23(6), 479-492.

Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia. (1993). Environmental law in British Columbia. Victoria, BC: Author.

Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (1998, May). Educational initiatives in Canada, 1998: A report from the provinces and territories. [Document prepared for the Third National Forum on Education, St. John's, Newfoundland].  [1999, Nov. 25].

Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (1993, September). 64th meeting of the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada: Joint declaration future directions for the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) (Document No. 860-306/008). Victoria, BC: Author.

Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada [DIAND]. (1996). Discussion paper on accountability. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Economic Council of Canada. (1992). A lot to learn. Education and training in Canada.  Ottawa, ON: Canada Publication Group.

Education Quality and Accountability Office. (1997, November). EQAO Newsletter, Vol 2. No.2.

Fagan, L. P. (1995). Performance accountability in Newfoundland school systems. Canadian Journal of Education, 20(1), 77-79.

Gaventa, J., & Valderrama, C. (1999). Participation, citizenship and local governance. [Background note]. Available:  (March 1, 2001].

Glass, G. V. (1972). The many faces of educational accountability. Phi Delta Kappan, 53, June, 636-639.

Government of Saskatchewan. (1996). Preparing for the new century: Making choices for today and tomorrow. Regina, SK: Author.

Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting and accountability: Changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting. Toronto, ON: Prentice Hall.

Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances, Strategic Management Journal, 12, 83-103.

Hannon, V. (1983). Education: Some forms of legal redress outside the courts. British Journal of Education Studies, 31(3), 211-220.

Held, D (1996). Models of Democracy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Jenkins, R., & Goetz, A. (1999). Accounts and accountability. Third World Quarterly, 20 (3), 603-22. [2001, March 2].

Kuchapski, R. (1998) Reconceptualizing accountability for education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Kuchapski, R. (1998). Accountability and the Social Good: Utilizing Manzer’s Liberal Framework in Canada. Education and Urban Society, 30(4), 531-545.

Lacey, C., & Lawton, D. (1981a). Introduction. In Colin Lacey and Denis Lawton (Eds.), Introduction. Issues in educational accountability (pp. 1-30). New York: Methuen.

Leithwood, K., Edge, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). Educational accountability: The state of the art: International Networks for Innovative Systems (Inis). Gutersloh, Germany: Bertelsmann Foundation Publishers.

Lello, J. (1979). Accountability in practice. London: Cassell.

Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4-16.

Macpherson, R. J. S. (1996). Educative accountability: Theory, practice, policy and research in
 educational administration. New York: Pergamon.

Macpherson, R. J. S. (1995). Introduction. International Journal of Educational Research, 23(6), 475-478.

Maheu, R. (1995). Education indicators in Quebec. Canadian Journal of Education, 20(1), 56-64.

Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Manzer, R. (1994). Public schools and political ideas: Canadian educational policy in historical perspective. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Mawhinney, H. (1995). Systemic reform or new wine in an old bottle: Generating accountability through Ontario’s New Foundations in Education reforms. International Journal of Educational Research, 23(6), 505-518.

McEwen, N., (1995a). Accountability in education in Canada. Canadian Journal of Education, 20(1), 1-17.

McEwen, N. (1995b). Educational accountability in Alberta. Canadian Journal of Education, 20(1), 27-44.

McEwen, N., Fagan, L. P., Earl, L., Hodgkinson, D., & Maheau, R. (1995). Reflections and clarifications. Canadian Journal of Education, 20(1),99-107.

McKenzie, H. (1994). Education in Canada: Current issues (Cat. No. YM32-2/386E). Ottawa, AB, Canada: Ministry of Supply and Services.

Moore, C. (1994). Partners or pests? Experience of grievance and redress procedures in education. SCR Research Project Report No. 60. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 380 8709)

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. (Stock No. 065-00-00177-2). Washington: DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Consumer Council. (1993). Redress in the public sector.

Newmann, F., King, M., Rigdon, M. (1997). Accountability and school performance: Implications from restructuring schools, Harvard Education Review, 67(1), 41-74.

Nixon, (1992). Evaluating the whole curriculum. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (1995, November). Backgrounder: The Education Quality and Accountability Office. [1999, Dec. 5].

Ontario Royal Commission on Learning. (1995). For the love of learning. Toronto, ON: Ministry of Education.

Orbit,32(1), 2001.

Pitkin, H. (1967). The concept of representation. Los Angeles: CA: University of California Press.

The Provincial Committee of Aims and Objectives of Education in the Schools of Ontario [Commonly referred to as the Hall-Dennis Report]. (1968). Living and learning. Toronto, ON: Department of Education.

Quebec. (1966). Royal Commission of Inquiry on Education in the Province of Quebec, Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Education in the Province of Quebec, (Vol. 4). Quebec, PQ: Government Printer.

Radwinski, G. (1987). Ontario study of the relevance of education and the issue of dropouts. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Education.

Republic of South Africa. Africa Governance Forum II. [2000, Ocober 5]

Royal Commission of Inquiry on Education in the Province of Quebec. (1966). Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Education in the Province of Quebec (Vol. 4). Quebec, PQ: Government Printer.

Sarkar, A., & Vicq, J. (1992). The accountability of mixed corporations. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre for Management Development.

Saskatchewan Education. (2001). Saskatchewan Education indicators: Kindergarden to Grade 12. Regina, SK: Author.

Saskatchewan, Crown Investments Review Commission. (1982). Report of the Crown Investments Review Commission. Regina: Author.

Scheweitzer, T. (1995). The state of education in Canada. Montreal, PQ: The Institute for Research on Public Policy.

Simey, M. (1985). Government by consent: The principles and practice of accountability in local government. London: Bedford Square Press.

Sykes, J. B. (Ed.). (1976). The concise Oxford dictionary (6th ed.). Oxford: University Press.

Sykes, G., & Elmore, R. F. (1988). Making schools manageable: Policy and administration for tomorrow’s schools. In J. Hannaway and R. Crowson (Eds.), The politics of reforming school administration (pp. 77-94). New York: Falmer.

Torres, C. A. (1995). State and education revisited: Why educational researchers should think politically about education. In Michael W. Apple (Ed.), Review of Research in Education: Vol.21 (pp. 255-331). Washington, DC: American Education Research Association.

United Nations System-wide Special Initiative on African [UNSIA]. (No date). Governance Forum II: Accountability and transparency in Africa: A concept paper. [2000, Oct. 5].

United Nations System-wide Special Initiative on African [UNSIA]. (1998). Republic of South Africa: African Governance Forum II. [2000, Oct. 5].

Wirt, F. M., & Kirst, M. W. (1989). Schools in conflict. Berkeley, CA.: McCutchan Publishing.

Vishwanath, T., & Kaufmann, D. (1999). Towards transparency in finance and governance [Draft]. The World Bank. Available:

Wise, A. E. (1979). Legislated learning: The bureaucratization of the American classroom. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Worth, W. H. (1972). A future of choices; a choice of futures; report of the Commission on Educational Planning. Edmonton, AB: Queen's Printer.


Table of Contents


Appendix A
 


Table of Contents

Back to: Evaluation and Reporting