Collaboration on school improvement under different educational accountability systems in two countries

Abstract

Abstract Schools must continuously improve their practices to address today’s societal challenges. To advance school improvement, educational accountability systems have been implemented in many parts of the world; they vary significantly in the levels of pressure they exert on schools. Given that school improvement is inherently a social and complex collaborative process, this paper delves deeper into how collaboration within school teams on improvement efforts varies across different accountability systems, considering social network data of school teams for the first time. Primary, key elements of accountability systems are analyzed theoretically to better understand the relationship between educational accountability systems and collaboration on school improvement. Taking an exploratory binational approach, the paper then compares a more bureaucratic and legal accountability system, operating as a high-stakes approach, in a school district in a city in California, USA, and a more professional accountability system, operating as a low-stakes approach, in a school community in a canton in the German-speaking part of Switzerland. The main focus of the comparative analyses is on key elements of the social network structure of staff members of elementary schools and central conditions of collaboration on school improvement, namely, trust relations and leadership. The findings provide initial evidence for a more positive relationship between collaboration on school improvement, social cohesion, and trust in a system that focuses on professional accountability than in a system that focuses on bureaucratic and legal accountability. There are no accountability-specific differences in the network position of leaders in this comparison, however. The findings suggest that the assumptions are worth pursuing further in future research.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 7 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.