View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

From Accountability to Shared Responsibility: A Case Study of a Multi-Layered Educational Change Initiative

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: From Accountability to Shared Responsibility: A Case Study of a Multi-Layered Educational Change Initiative
Language: English
Authors: MacNeil, Kimberley A. (ORCID 0000-0002-8050-0819), Butler, Deborah L., Schnellert, Leyton M.
Source: Journal of Educational Change. Jun 2023 24(2):213-241.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 29
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Secondary Education
Descriptors: Educational Change, Case Studies, Accountability, Stakeholders, School Districts, Teacher Attitudes, Administrator Attitudes, Instructional Leadership, Teacher Responsibility, Administrator Responsibility, Professionalism, Teacher Empowerment, Elementary Secondary Education
DOI: 10.1007/s10833-021-09440-4
ISSN: 1389-2843
1573-1812
Abstract: This research examined how stakeholders (n = 40) from one school district experienced "accountability" within a context where responsibility for student learning was being distributed across the system. Using a case study design, we examined: what conditions supported stakeholders in multiple roles to exercise responsibility for student learning? Analyses of documents and interviews revealed conditions that enabled teachers, instructional leaders, and administrators to share responsibility in relation to their roles, and empowered teachers to engage in inquiry for continuous improvement and build from their sense of professionalism and responsibility. Implications are discussed for empowering teachers, and other stakeholders, to exercise responsibility in the context of an accountability system.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1375954
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFjWa2sYFZA36YDhnW92duzAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBYhaXaOrvfQn7hKBwIBEICBmih1mlONIHTpeledzqDe1iz3tDg2TM4Lvbnmiy6sK8wVwtI7F6TcVUdBn385kMyVgBGem-en4ZSrI-YRvabLlDUY1Qo0aEc6F3mxUNXC5SdhRb7PFsCPdE3u7AhviCfJ3PH2jQs9UIeDqV07c_ojeioR7lx2G8kP7T78i9XULg4o0tPO0vgS-sVC57YcpS8YiDQnQNBAmUUInOE=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0163484615;9m301jun.23;2023May05.05:33;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0163484615-1">From accountability to shared responsibility: A case study of a multi-layered educational change initiative </title> <p>This research examined how stakeholders (n = 40) from one school district experienced "accountability" within a context where responsibility for student learning was being distributed across the system. Using a case study design, we examined: what conditions supported stakeholders in multiple roles to exercise responsibility for student learning? Analyses of documents and interviews revealed conditions that enabled teachers, instructional leaders, and administrators to share responsibility in relation to their roles, and empowered teachers to engage in inquiry for continuous improvement and build from their sense of professionalism and responsibility. Implications are discussed for empowering teachers, and other stakeholders, to exercise responsibility in the context of an accountability system.</p> <p>Keywords: Accountability; Educational change; Continuous improvement; Professional responsibility; Responsibility; Shared responsibility; Student data; Teacher learning; Trust</p> <hd id="AN0163484615-2">Introduction</hd> <p>All stakeholders in a multi-layered educational system share responsibility for student learning and ongoing educational improvement despite having distinct roles to play. Where teachers are directly responsible for student learning through their daily work, school-level leaders often exercise responsibility more indirectly by supporting teachers. School-level instructional or administrative leaders may also work in concert with district-level leaders to provide needed supports for teacher professional learning and improved student outcomes. At the same time, governmental ministries or departments may develop policies, curricula, requirements, and/or supports designed to influence learning at the district- and school-levels. Ultimately, from governmental offices to classrooms, all stakeholders seek to achieve their particular responsibilities for student learning, and accountability to the public, from their respective roles and positions. Ideally, change efforts would recognize and support all stakeholders' capacities to fulfill their respective responsibilities in a coordinated way. However, individuals' abilities to exercise agency by acting on their sense of responsibility are mediated by the sociocultural context (Eteläpelto et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref1">39</reflink>]; Ruohotie-Lyhty & Moate, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref2">76</reflink>]) which is necessarily influenced by conditions established within educational change initiatives and accountability policies.</p> <p>Unfortunately, change initiatives that seek to bolster and leverage these very responsibilities can create conflicts that undermine meaningful innovation. For example, in some jurisdictions, initiatives seek to spur improvement through large-scale testing and directing change based on school-level results (Herman, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref3">46</reflink>]; Hursh, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref4">50</reflink>]; Koretz, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref5">55</reflink>]). However, while large-scale assessments can provide a snapshot of performance at a systems level, they incur minimal return if they do not include information that classroom-based educators can interpret for improving instruction (O'Day, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref6">70</reflink>]; Nagy, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref7">68</reflink>]; Schnellert et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref8">79</reflink>]; Schoenfeld, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref9">78</reflink>]; Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref10">106</reflink>]). Further, in this scenario, teachers are often positioned as solely responsible for student learning outcomes (Leithwood & Earl, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref11">60</reflink>]), with insufficient attention to other kinds of supports needed for them to improve educational practice (Sciarra & Hunter, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref12">80</reflink>]; Shepard et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref13">83</reflink>]). The result can be that, while policymakers might feel they are achieving their responsibilities in spurring and monitoring change, their efforts may not be effective unless they also support educators in fulfilling their responsibilities at the classroom level.</p> <p>Another challenge in many change efforts is how teachers are positioned to "answer to" supervisors or outside agencies for performance. Educational systems often build in accountability expectations across stakeholders in a system. For example, teachers are typically accountable to school- and district-level administrators; districts are typically accountable to governmental departments or ministries. The educational system as a whole is accountable to the public. But problems can arise depending on how stakeholders are positioned in terms of their accountability to each other. For example, top-down reform efforts can communicate the assumption that politicians must do for education what educators will not (Codd, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref14">24</reflink>]; Debard & Kubow, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref15">36</reflink>]) and that teachers cannot be trusted to make competent decisions about students' needs (Darling-Hammond, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref16">28</reflink>]). In contrast, what are needed are approaches to educational change that address the growing understanding that, to achieve meaningful change, stakeholders from across an educational system (i.e., teachers, leaders, policymakers) must share accountability for outcomes, exercise their particular responsibilities in relation to their roles, and have an active role to play in creating and monitoring opportunities for equitable learning (Darling-Hammond et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref17">31</reflink>]; Rothman & Marion, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref18">75</reflink>]).</p> <p>Alternative accountability approaches are needed that foster systems-level educational improvements by recognizing that all stakeholders share responsibility from and across nested positions (Darling-Hammond et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref19">31</reflink>]; Møller, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref20">66</reflink>]). Because of the promise of such alternatives, it is important to investigate how change efforts can position stakeholders to fulfill their relative roles and responsibilities in a more coordinated fashion. To that end, this study contributes by investigating an educational change effort as experienced by stakeholders within one district who were leveraging their positions to create opportunities, tools, and resources that supported teacher and student learning. Correspondingly, we examined the conditions of that context that supported teachers to build from their sense of professionalism and responsibility.</p> <hd id="AN0163484615-3">Sensitizing theoretical lenses</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0163484615-4">From accountability to responsibility</hd> <p>Stakeholders' roles and formal responsibilities within educational systems are commonly conceptualized within accountability frameworks, which lay out expectations for 'Who is answering to whom and for what' (Wagner, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref21">101</reflink>]). Accountability systems vary in approach (Holloway et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref22">47</reflink>]) but are often adopted with the expectation they will help ensure efficient, effective, equitable, and transparent educational systems (Verger & Parcerisa, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref23">98</reflink>]). Thus, to anchor this research, we considered how accountability frameworks have been conceptualized and enacted, along with their promise to create conditions for shared responsibility and distributed accountability in systems-level change initiatives.</p> <p>First, a managerial approach to accountability has been associated with conditions that emphasize stakeholders' responsibilities within hierarchical structures (Biesta, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref24">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref25">4</reflink>]). While defended on the basis of creating accountability to the public, managerial forms of accountability privilege accountability to regulators for outcomes, potentially leaving other stakeholders (e.g., parents) out of the "accountability loop" (Biesta, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref26">3</reflink>], p. 239). Increasingly, policymakers working within a managerial accountability framework rely on performative outcomes indicated by large-scale assessment results to monitor educational quality, and then require school-based educators and educational leaders to answer to superiors for performance (Holloway et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref27">47</reflink>]; Leithwood & Earl, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref28">60</reflink>]; Sinclair, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref29">84</reflink>]; Verger et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref30">99</reflink>]). However, the practice of holding a person or school solely responsible for outcomes when a shared responsibility exists is increasingly being questioned (Ehren & Perryman, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref31">37</reflink>]; Sciarra & Hunter, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref32">80</reflink>]; Torrance, [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref33">94</reflink>]), especially in light of the range of influences on achievement levels (e.g., resources for professional learning). Further, such policies are often built on the assumption that external accountability improves performance (Christensen & Lægreid, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref34">22</reflink>]) despite evidence that educators are internally motivated to act on a sense of responsibility for student achievement (Hult & Edström, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref35">48</reflink>]; Lauermann, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref36">56</reflink>]; Lauermann & Karabenick, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref37">57</reflink>]; Palermo & Thomson, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref38">73</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finding a more productive accountability framework requires recognizing professionals' commitment to work from a place of moral responsibility to individuals and society at large (Kelchtermans, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref39">52</reflink>]). Research indicates that teachers do feel responsible for student learning (Lauermann, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref40">56</reflink>]) and that productive approaches to change should provide a way of building from felt responsibility in contrast with simply demanding accountability (Lauermann & Karabenick, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref41">57</reflink>]). Indeed, a commitment to student learning has been found to occupy a core role in teachers' sense of professional identity (Day et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref42">35</reflink>]) with definitions of responsibility including "a sense of internal obligation and commitment to produce or prevent designated outcomes" (Lauermann & Karabenick, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref43">57</reflink>], p. 127). Research suggests that a commitment to students feeds teachers' intrinsic motivation and influences their professional commitment (Day et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref44">35</reflink>]; O'Connor, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref45">69</reflink>]).</p> <p>As a way forward, frameworks focused on professional accountability have been proposed because of their potential to better address educators' sense of professional responsibility (Codd, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref46">24</reflink>]). These frameworks emphasize teachers' duty to uphold the ethical standards of their profession by prioritizing student needs and answering to one another, students, parents, and professional colleagues (Leithwood & Earl, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref47">60</reflink>]; Møller, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref48">66</reflink>]; West et al., [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref49">104</reflink>]). Professional accountability builds from notions of professionalism that locate students' needs as the focus of work and calls for supporting key components of professionalism such as a commitment to continuous improvement (Fullan et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref50">40</reflink>]; O'Day & Smith, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref51">71</reflink>]).</p> <p>Promising are calls for blending notions of managerial and professional accountability in ways that accommodate the complexities associated with promoting educational change (Darling-Hammond, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref52">27</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref53">28</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref54">29</reflink>]; Møller, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref55">66</reflink>]; O'Day, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref56">70</reflink>]; Sirotnik, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref57">85</reflink>]). A blended approach suggests that not only are school-based educators/leaders and district-level administrators accountable to the public for educational quality, but so too should public officials be held accountable for supporting improvement efforts (Darling-Hammond, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref58">27</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref59">28</reflink>]; Greenfield et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref60">42</reflink>]; Hargreaves, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref61">43</reflink>]; Møller, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref62">66</reflink>]; Sahlberg, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref63">77</reflink>]; Sirotnik, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref64">85</reflink>]). In this way, a blended approach identifies reciprocal accountabilities, wherein educators have a responsibility to students, one another, and the public, while at the same time leaders have a duty to support students, teachers, and schools (Darling-Hammond et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref65">31</reflink>]; Møller, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref66">66</reflink>]). In contrast with a managerial accountability framework, where governing bodies are responsible for establishing goals and regulating others' adherence to work towards those goals (Chatelier & Rudolph, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref67">21</reflink>]), in a blended framework, the role of governing bodies is rendered more complex because it includes their responsibility to serve as a support to improvement.</p> <p>Despite this promising possibility, blending accountabilities may retain problematic aspects of managerial accountability that constrain teachers' opportunities to exercise professional responsibility, such as more top-down efforts to define progress and how to move forward (Sugrue & Mertkan, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref68">91</reflink>]). Further, blended approaches have focused on conceptualizing teachers' professionalism and ethical duties while leaving educational leaders—many of whom were previously educators—out of the sphere of professionalism. In other words, teachers, positioned as responsible professionals, and administrators, positioned as supervisors, can potentially be pitted against one another. When working in these conditions, school-level administrators may be particularly conflicted in navigating their roles as both pedagogical leaders and school-level managers (Gobby et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref69">41</reflink>]; Hult et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref70">49</reflink>]; Lemoine et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref71">61</reflink>]), particularly if they are positioned between achieving external accountability and supporting teachers to act on their professional responsibility (Hult & Edström, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref72">48</reflink>]; Perry & McWilliam, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref73">74</reflink>]).</p> <p>As a potential way forward, Møller ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref74">66</reflink>]) describes how, in the Norwegian context, responsibility and accountability are indistinguishable because "responsibility concerns the obligations teachers and school leaders, as part of a profession, have to each other in answering questions about what has happened within one's area of responsibility" (p. 38). Biesta ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref75">3</reflink>]) calls for "redefining our relationships on the basis of responsibility" (p. 250) as a way of moving forward from accountability regimes that have failed to achieve their democratic aims of creating transparency and equity in learning (Biesta, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref76">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref77">4</reflink>]). Responsibility is an important dimension of professionalism given notions that professionals responsively attend to the needs of the collective rather than the self (Solbrekke & Sugrue, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref78">87</reflink>]). Still, while there is evidence of positive effects when teachers take collective responsibility for student learning (Lee & Smith, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref79">59</reflink>]), less is known about what happens when stakeholders from across layers of an educational system (i.e., teachers, administrators, leaders) work in concert to support one another and share responsibility for students' success. Following on Møller ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref80">66</reflink>]) and Biesta ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref81">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref82">4</reflink>]), in this research, we investigated how a responsibility-oriented learning system might support stakeholders to create reciprocal responsibilities, in the midst of an educational change initiative.</p> <hd id="AN0163484615-5">Conditions that enable stakeholders to fulfill their responsibilities</hd> <p>At its core, a focus on professional responsibility acknowledges the central responsibility educators have to meet students' needs and serve the public interest (Englund & Solbrekke, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref83">38</reflink>]). However, other stakeholders also bear responsibility for quality and improvement initiatives (White et al., [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref84">105</reflink>]). While much has been written about the promise of professional responsibility for spurring change (e.g., Darling-Hammond, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref85">30</reflink>]), with some research outlining how to support teachers' sense of responsibility (Lauermann, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref86">56</reflink>]; Matteucci & Lauermann, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref87">64</reflink>]), less is understood about conditions that support educational leaders to exercise their responsibilities (Lauermann & Karabenick, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref88">57</reflink>]; Matteucci and Lauermann, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref89">64</reflink>]). Thus, the question is how more responsibility-oriented approaches to educational change can be instantiated in systems-level initiatives, and how all stakeholders across a system can have opportunities to exercise responsibility in relation to their roles.</p> <p>Research on teachers' experiences in change initiatives suggests four conditions that can combine to support their ability to exercise their professional responsibilities. First, teachers can support change when they feel that they are trusted to use their professional judgment in order to meet students' needs (Day et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref90">35</reflink>]; Solbrekke & Englund, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref91">86</reflink>]; Solbrekke & Sugrue, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref92">88</reflink>]; Tschannen-Moran, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref93">95</reflink>]). In high-trust environments, educators are freed to flexibly respond to students' needs in order to actively engage in the process of creating positive change (Louis, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref94">63</reflink>]; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref95">96</reflink>]). Further, trusting environments are likely to support responsibility by lessening the "sense of vulnerability associated with taking responsibility" (Lauermann & Karabenick, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref96">57</reflink>], p. 135).</p> <p>Second, research suggests that teachers have the opportunity to exercise their responsibility when improvement efforts are consonant with their beliefs. When teachers' values and initiative goals align, teachers are more likely to invest in learning initiatives (Datnow & Hubbard, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref97">33</reflink>]; Ketelaar et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref98">53</reflink>]; Wallace & Priestley, [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref99">102</reflink>]). It follows that teachers can act on their professional responsibility when they have the professional autonomy (Lauermann & Karabenick, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref100">57</reflink>]) to make workplace choices that are compatible with their hopes and values (Vähäsantenen et al., [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref101">97</reflink>]). Further, teachers have been found to feel most personally responsible to students and parents for student learning outcomes (Lauermann, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref102">56</reflink>]) suggesting that accountability systems that expect teachers to be formally answerable first to superiors may create a responsibility-accountability gap that diminishes teachers' sense of responsibility (Chatelier & Rudolph, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref103">21</reflink>]; Lauermann & Karabenick, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref104">57</reflink>]).</p> <p>Third, to support teachers, as well as others in educational systems, to take responsibility requires making space for them to engage in professional learning supportive of the change they intend to create (Datnow et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref105">34</reflink>]). Both teachers and educational leaders may also be more likely to assume responsibility in relation to their particular roles when they perceive that their goals to improve will be successful (Lauermann & Karabenick, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref106">57</reflink>]). To achieve these goals, professional learning opportunities are needed that both recognize teachers as key agents of change (Spillane, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref107">89</reflink>]) and are based on the assumption that individuals bring leverageable expertise, knowledge, and experience to a learning community. Further, supports to professional learning require that leaders invest in supporting professional learning and practice development (Darling-Hammond, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref108">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>Fourth, teachers' ability to act on their sense of responsibility is supported in initiatives where they can play a meaningful role in assessing and monitoring change in relation to their own efforts. For example, in contrast to more distant, managerial approaches to monitoring outcomes (e.g., using large-scale assessments; Jennings & Bearak, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref109">51</reflink>]; Knoester & Au, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref110">54</reflink>]; Koretz, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref111">55</reflink>]; Von der Embse et al., [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref112">100</reflink>]), when data are generated with/by teachers in ways that provide rich, situated information, then teachers can use that information to make decisions about how to adjust their teaching and then monitor student learning outcomes (Butler & Schnellert, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref113">16</reflink>]; Lauermann & Karabenick, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref114">57</reflink>]). In these conditions, teachers build from and strengthen their self-efficacy, when they can see meaningful and valued changes associated with their efforts, which also then fuels further investment in change initiatives (Butler & Schnellert, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref115">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref116">16</reflink>]; Butler et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref117">18</reflink>]). And while high self-efficacy has been found to be linked to an increased sense of responsibility for student learning (Matteucci & Lauermann, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref118">64</reflink>]), the translation of "'I can' (i.e., self-efficacy) ...to a sense of 'I should' (i.e., teacher responsibility)" is not a given and requires further examination (Lauermann & Karabenick, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref119">58</reflink>], p. 15).</p> <p>In sum, research suggests that when teachers are trusted to make decisions autonomously, in pursuit of goals they value for students, have opportunities to advance their learning and practice, and have a meaningful role in generating data to monitor classroom-level improvement, then they are more likely to experience a sense of agency and their investment in change initiatives is more likely to be sustained (Birenbaum, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref120">5</reflink>]; Birenbaum et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref121">6</reflink>]; Schnellert et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref122">79</reflink>]). It remains to be shown whether and how similar conditions could support other stakeholders' experiences of responsibility in a coordinated change initiative. For example, to fulfill their respective responsibilities, it is possible that leaders also need opportunities to exercise agency by being trusted to make decisions, build toward goals they value for students, advance their professional learning, and have a meaningful role in generating and building from data. Ultimately, in a systemic change initiative, the question is how stakeholders across a system can fulfill their collective responsibilities in ways that are coordinated across their respective roles, thereby fulfilling reciprocal accountabilities.</p> <hd id="AN0163484615-6">Contextualizing our study</hd> <p>The school district we studied is located within a western province in Canada. In Canada education is overseen at the provincial level, typically by a Ministry of Education (MoE). Regional oversight is provided within "districts" that oversee the work of a collection of schools. The system we studied included the following stakeholders: (a) ministry-level policymakers; (b) district-level leaders (administrators; educational consultants); (c) school-level leaders (administrators; pedagogical coaches), and (d) school-based educators (classroom teachers, support teachers, teacher-librarians). For this research, we considered key conditions established by the MoE that impacted work within the participating district. Then we focused on studying whether and how conditions in the district-level initiative could be associated with how responsibility for student learning was evidenced among stakeholders at both the district and school levels.</p> <p>In this section, we draw on data we collected to describe how conditions were established that shaped the experiences of participants. First, our review of documents (see below) revealed how the MoE in this province was distributing responsibility for improving student learning outcomes across the system. To that end, the MoE expected schools and school districts to establish student improvement goals, develop plans to meet them, monitor progress, and improve results. Notably, the province did not stipulate the specific goals schools and districts needed to create nor did it specify standard assessment tools to be used. Instead, districts were responsible for describing their approaches to improving student achievement and reporting on progress in a publicly available document. In this respect, the MoE exercised influence by setting the stage for stakeholders (e.g., district- and school-level administrators; educators) to work flexibly within an improvement-focused mandate in response to the priorities within their specific contexts. The MoE also supported and shaped the direction of improvement by creating an opportunity for districts to apply for supplementary funding to support literacy initiatives. Districts had to report on their initiatives each year to receive the following year's grant.</p> <p>Because districts had the flexibility to work from the interests of school-level personnel, leadership in the case study school district decided to build from school plans to identify a common goal for the system. They chose "adolescent literacy," which was becoming a concern across secondary schools in the district. Taking advantage of the Ministry's focus on literacy, the district also applied for supplementary funding from the MoE. They used that funding to provide each secondary school with one block of time for a teacher to act as site-based literacy leader. District-level leaders also provided opportunities for teachers to advance their professional learning within teams of inquirers and attend workshops related to adolescent literacy.</p> <p>To track student progress, all secondary schools were asked by the district to use performance-based assessments (PBA; see Brownlie et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref123">8</reflink>]) to guide (formatively) and measure (summatively) students' literacy development. PBAs were based on provincial performance standards for reading informational text, but teachers and literacy leaders at each school were able to personalize the PBA to the contexts in which they were working (e.g., subject area; grade level). Teachers and literacy leaders collaboratively scored assessments. In addition, a subset of schools in the district chose to employ a "learning through reading" questionnaire (LTRQ; see Butler et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref124">14</reflink>]; Butler & Cartier [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref125">12</reflink>]; Cartier & Butler [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref126">19</reflink>]) which identified students' engagement in self-regulated learning. All schools that were using both the PBA and LTRQ were invited to participate in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0163484615-7">Research question</hd> <p>In this research, we investigated individuals' experiences within a district-level adolescent literacy initiative that seemed to offer opportunities for all stakeholders to build on their sense of responsibility and professionalism. We investigated the following question: What conditions supported stakeholders in multiple roles to exercise responsibility for student learning?</p> <hd id="AN0163484615-8">Research design and methodology</hd> <p>This study was part of a larger, longitudinal research project that employed a qualitative, case study methodology. In previous publications we have described how stakeholders in this context were working collaboratively to create and build from student assessments (Schnellert et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref127">79</reflink>]) and engage in inquiry which had positive benefits for change efforts (Butler & Schnellert, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref128">15</reflink>]); as well as how teachers' sense of efficacy and leaders' attention to agency supported engagement in the literacy initiative (Butler et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref129">18</reflink>]). For this report, our unique goal was to gain a deeper understanding of supports to professional responsibility for all stakeholders within this context. A qualitative case study design afforded a process-oriented, descriptive analysis allowing for answering <emph>how</emph> and <emph>why</emph> (Yin, [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref130">107</reflink>]) questions regarding individuals' experiences as members of a complex community (Butler & Cartier, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref131">13</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0163484615-9">Participants</hd> <p>The school district we studied had been engaged in collaborative research with a local, partnering university for several years, including with this study's second and third authors. We selected this district because, from a purposeful sampling perspective (Stake, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref132">90</reflink>]), it represented a case from which we could learn about the phenomenon under study. Ethical approval from both the university and the school district was granted before beginning this research; participation was voluntary.</p> <p>Our study focused on the experiences of stakeholders in the district overall, as well as in the five schools that we invited to participate. We chose those schools, which had decided to use both the PBA and LTRQ to develop and monitor progress within the literacy initiative, because the research team was working most closely with staff in these contexts, so we had the richest data to trace change processes. Schools 1, 2, and 3 had the most consistently engaged literacy team members, while School 4 struggled to develop a cohesive team. School 5 was the only elementary school and was at the earliest stage of developing a literacy team. Data for this report included a review of documents plus interviews with 40 stakeholders who consented to participate. Our participants came from across all five schools (four secondary; one elementary) and the district office (see Table 1).</p> <p>Table 1 Participants in this study</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Location</p></th><th align="left"><p>Participant</p></th><th align="left"><p>Years of experience</p></th><th align="left"><p>Role</p></th><th align="left"><p>Teaching assignment</p></th><th align="left"><p>Pre</p></th><th align="left"><p>Post</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Board</p></td><td align="left"><p>AA</p></td><td align="left"><p>33</p></td><td align="left"><p>DS</p></td><td align="left"><p>N/A (Physics)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Board</p></td><td align="left"><p>JB</p></td><td align="left"><p>33</p></td><td align="left"><p>DoI</p></td><td align="left"><p>N/A (SPED)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Board</p></td><td align="left"><p>JC</p></td><td align="left"><p>27</p></td><td align="left"><p>DP</p></td><td align="left"><p>N/A (SPED)</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Board</p></td><td align="left"><p>IO</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>DLC</p></td><td align="left"><p>N/A (SPED)</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Board</p></td><td align="left"><p>MI</p></td><td align="left"><p>32</p></td><td align="left"><p>DLC</p></td><td align="left"><p>N/A (SPED)</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 1(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>AQ</p></td><td align="left"><p>23</p></td><td align="left"><p>P</p></td><td align="left"><p>N/A (Home Economics)</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 1(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>BL</p></td><td align="left"><p>19</p></td><td align="left"><p>LL, RT, CT</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hum., SPED</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 1(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>DL</p></td><td align="left"><p>14</p></td><td align="left"><p>RT</p></td><td align="left"><p>SPED</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 1(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>VO</p></td><td align="left"><p>23</p></td><td align="left"><p>Lib, CT</p></td><td align="left"><p>Library, English</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 1(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>ZO</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>CT</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hum., PE</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 1(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>CL</p></td><td align="left"><p>16</p></td><td align="left"><p>CT</p></td><td align="left"><p>English, Portfolio Block</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 1(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>FN</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>CT</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hum., English</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 1(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>LF</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>CT</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hum., English</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 1(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>FE</p></td><td align="left"><p>33</p></td><td align="left"><p>CT</p></td><td align="left"><p>Science, Math</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 1(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>JZ</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>CT</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hum., SPED</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 1(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>KV</p></td><td align="left"><p>33</p></td><td align="left"><p>CT</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hum., Drama</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 2(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>ZB</p></td><td align="left"><p>32</p></td><td align="left"><p>P</p></td><td align="left"><p>N/A (Science, Math)</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 2(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>SZ</p></td><td align="left"><p>19</p></td><td align="left"><p>VP</p></td><td align="left"><p>N/A (PE)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 2(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>LS</p></td><td align="left"><p>26</p></td><td align="left"><p>VP, CT</p></td><td align="left"><p>English</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 2(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>LC</p></td><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p>LL, CT</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hum</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 2(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>RL</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>RT, CT</p></td><td align="left"><p>English, SPED</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 2(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>CB</p></td><td align="left"><p>20</p></td><td align="left"><p>CT</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hum., English</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 2(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>CE</p></td><td align="left"><p>24</p></td><td align="left"><p>CT</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hum., Social Studies</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 2(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>QQ</p></td><td align="left"><p>17</p></td><td align="left"><p>CT</p></td><td align="left"><p>English, Hum., French</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 2(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>ZZ</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>CT</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hum. (French Immersion)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 2(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>AS</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>CT</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hum., English</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 2(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>IG</p></td><td align="left"><p>22</p></td><td align="left"><p>CT</p></td><td align="left"><p>Music</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 2(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>LZ</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>CT</p></td><td align="left"><p>English, Social Studies</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 3(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>QR</p></td><td align="left"><p>22</p></td><td align="left"><p>P</p></td><td align="left"><p>N/A (Social Studies)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 3(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>CR</p></td><td align="left"><p>26</p></td><td align="left"><p>VP, RT</p></td><td align="left"><p>Second Shot, SPED</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 3(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>ZF</p></td><td align="left"><p>11</p></td><td align="left"><p>LL, CT</p></td><td align="left"><p>English, Social Studies</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 3(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>IZ</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>RT</p></td><td align="left"><p>SPED</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 3(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>LA</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>CT</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hum., Social Studies</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 3(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>RS</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>CT</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hum., Social Studies</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 4(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>OG</p></td><td align="left"><p>30</p></td><td align="left"><p>P</p></td><td align="left"><p>N/A (Math, Science)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 4(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>FO</p></td><td align="left"><p>29</p></td><td align="left"><p>LL, Lib</p></td><td align="left"><p>Library, Technology</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 4(S)</p></td><td align="left"><p>JD</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>CT</p></td><td align="left"><p>English</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 5(E)</p></td><td align="left"><p>VC</p></td><td align="left"><p>30</p></td><td align="left"><p>P</p></td><td align="left"><p>N/A (Generalist)</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 5(E)</p></td><td align="left"><p>JK</p></td><td align="left"><p>14</p></td><td align="left"><p>VP</p></td><td align="left"><p>Generalist</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 5(E)</p></td><td align="left"><p>MV</p></td><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p>CT (LL)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Generalist</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td><td align="left"><p>•</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>S</emph> secondary school, <emph>E</emph> elementary school, <emph>DS</emph> District Superintendent, <emph>DoI</emph> Director of Instruction, <emph>DP</emph> District Principal, <emph>DLC</emph> District Literacy Consultant, <emph>P</emph> School Principal, <emph>VP</emph> Vice-Principal, <emph>LL</emph> Literacy Leader, <emph>CT</emph> Classroom Teacher, <emph>RT</emph> Resource Teacher, <emph>Lib</emph> Librarian. <emph>Hum</emph> Humanities, <emph>Second Shot</emph> pull out support to LTR, <emph>SPED</emph> special education, <emph>PE</emph> physical education</p> <p>Overall, participants' years of experience as educators ranged from two to thirty-three years. Participants in formalized administrative roles included district-level leaders, namely the school district superintendent (DS), the director of instruction (DoI), and a district principal (DP), as well as administrators at the school level, including four school-level principals (P) and five school-level vice-principals (VP). Three of the VPs spent a portion of their workload as classroom and/or resource teachers. Participants also included two district-level literacy consultants (DLC) who supported educators across schools and, at the school level, four literacy leaders (LL). LLs spent the majority of their professional assignment as classroom teachers (3/4) and one as a teacher-librarian (1/4). At the only participating elementary school, one teacher assumed an informal role as LL and her interview was thus conducted as if she were formally appointed to the role. In addition to formal (and one informal) leaders (administrative; pedagogical), participants also included twenty-two teachers. Of these, seventeen were classroom teachers (CT; 15 English and/or Social Studies and other subject areas; 1 Math/Science; 1 Music); two were resource teachers (RT); one was both a classroom (English) and a resource teacher, and one was both a classroom teacher (English) and a teacher librarian (Lib).</p> <hd id="AN0163484615-10">Data collection</hd> <p>For this study, two main sources of evidence were analyzed. First, we focused on policy and project documents to understand how conditions were established across the educational system in the province and district that might have influenced participants' perceptions of, or experiences with, the educational change initiative. Documents included: (a) the MoE Accountability Framework; (b) the provincial government's 2006–2009 Service Plan; (c) the district's Accountability Contract; and (d) the district's literacy plan and report submitted to the MoE.</p> <p>Second, semi-structured, hour-long interviews were conducted with each of the 40 participants in the Fall and/or Spring (see Table 1). Interview questions were parallel across stakeholders but were adapted to participants' particular roles. They referenced a range of topics, including those relevant to the larger project. Data analyzed for this research included any and all responses relevant to our research questions (e.g., conditions that influenced participants' enactment of responsibility; how they exercised responsibility).</p> <p>In Fall interviews, participating teachers were invited to discuss: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref133">1</reflink>) their goals; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref134">2</reflink>) shifts in their thinking related to teaching and learning; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref135">3</reflink>) the role of assessment in setting goals, monitoring, and/or adjusting practices; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref136">4</reflink>) links between collaboration, project involvement, pedagogical understandings, and practice; (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref137">5</reflink>) the relationship between the literacy project and school and/or district goals; and (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref138">6</reflink>) the project's sustainability. Spring interviews allowed teachers to revisit these themes with additional prompts inviting them to discuss: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref139">1</reflink>) how they might maintain or alter practices; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref140">2</reflink>) reasons for working with specific individuals; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref141">3</reflink>) how they might support the aims of the literacy initiative; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref142">4</reflink>) perceived efficacy of their practice; (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref143">5</reflink>) how and why they drew on specific resources; (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref144">6</reflink>) their academic background and current teaching load; and (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref145">7</reflink>) perceived impact of the initiative at the classroom level and beyond.</p> <p>Interview questions for LLs touched on the same themes with added questions that allowed them to address their roles as supports within schools and in support of the district-wide literacy agenda. Interview questions for school- and district-level administrators and district-level literacy consultants were designed to address their perceptions about the processes and changes they were observing within and across schools. In their Spring interviews, school- and district-level administrators and literacy consultants were also asked about how they were supporting project goals, how they saw the initiative functioning or not functioning, and how data collection and analyses related to the demands of the larger accountability context.</p> <hd id="AN0163484615-11">Data analysis</hd> <p>We began by reviewing all documents to describe the context in which participants were working. This grounded our description of the provincial and district contexts overall, as presented earlier.</p> <p>When analyzing the interviews, we recognized that the second and third authors of this paper had been leading and studying professional learning within the district. Thus, the first author took the lead on transcribing interviews and data analysis to provide the research team with an 'outsider' perspective. While transcribing, the first author engaged in memoing in order to track the emerging conceptual understandings, relationships, and patterns she was noticing. These initial 'reflective remarks' (Miles et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref146">65</reflink>]) were not tied to specific research questions. Through this review, the first author noticed how participants' responses could be connected to scholarly discourses focused on professional responsibility and accountability (her unique scholarly expertise). Following review of the first author's memos, the team came together to identify differences and similarities in what they each had identified as important in their own reading of transcripts. Together we refined our research focus.</p> <p>From this point, our analysis approach could best be described as abductive, which involves an iterative back and forth between inductive and deductive analysis (Agar, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref147">1</reflink>]; Butler, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref148">11</reflink>]; Tavory & Timmermans, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref149">92</reflink>]). On one hand, we continued to code the data inductively, generating what we termed "low inference" codes that represent any key ideas expressed by participants that were relevant to our research focus (using their own words as much as possible). An abductive approach supported us in developing our "empirical observations," which we captured using inductive coding. At the same time, with our research question more clearly identified, we also set upon re-exploring relevant literature to identify sensitizing theoretical constructs. This review was most influential when we started to move from inductive coding towards finding meaning (patterns) in the data. For example, our evolving set of theoretically sensitizing lenses "[allowed] us to see things in the empirical that we would gloss over" (Tavory & Timmermans, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref150">92</reflink>], p. 2). Considering findings from the literature also influenced how we started to cluster and organize codes.</p> <p>In order to test and refine the codes we were developing, the first author gathered all evidence related to each code into one spreadsheet keeping location (e.g., School 1) and role (e.g., lit leader) in context. Creating these "first-level" displays allowed us to check our interpretation of meaning against the evidence (i.e., did codes match what participants were saying?). They also allowed us to discern similarities and differences in what individuals in different roles and/or at different sites were saying and experiencing.</p> <p>When we had the full set of refined codes in hand, the full team then worked together to look for patterns. We did this by creating "higher-level" displays that allowed us to view emerging evidence systematically and develop "pattern codes" that reflected higher-level conceptual categories (Miles et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref151">65</reflink>], p. 73). While the patterns we identified were sensitized by the literature (e.g., looking for how different stakeholders were experiencing conditions associated in the literature with exercising responsibility), we also remained open to identifying patterns that extended or contradicted prior research. Ultimately, our analysis identified many patterns that were aligned with the literature, but also enabled us to generate an "empirical description [that pushed] the theorization in unexpected directions" (Tavory & Timmermans, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref152">92</reflink>], p. 2).</p> <p>In the upcoming section, we present our findings from this analysis. In so doing, we provide links to evidence by providing quotations that reference participants using pseudo-initials, their role and school affiliation (see also Table 1). In this report, "administrator" refers to a school- or district-level leader in an administrative role (i.e., DS, DOI, DP, P, VP), while "leader" refers to both administrators and instructional leaders (i.e., LL, DLC).</p> <hd id="AN0163484615-12">Findings</hd> <p>This section presents our findings in relation to our research question. Overall, through our abductive analysis, we found that stakeholders from across roles were supported to exercise responsibility for student learning in a coordinated way. This seemed possible because conditions across the system we studied were creating opportunities for: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref153">1</reflink>) experiencing trust; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref154">2</reflink>) improvement efforts consonant with stakeholders' beliefs and values; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref155">3</reflink>) professional learning; and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref156">4</reflink>) coordinated monitoring of outcomes and data. We also identified nuances in how those conditions were experienced, not just by teachers, but also by all stakeholders across the system.</p> <hd id="AN0163484615-13">Trust</hd> <p>Based on our findings, we interpreted that trust was experienced by both teachers and leaders. For example, in the provincial context, district-level leaders were trusted to make decisions about how to create and report on school goals; school-level leaders were trusted by the district, and in most cases by teachers, to lead and be part of change efforts within their schools; teachers were trusted to drive their own goal setting, create assessments, and make instructional decisions as a result of monitoring student outcomes. For example, JC (DC) emphasized how the assessment and related debriefing processes of the literacy initiative were carefully designed to allow teachers to feel "that sense of trust...without feeling like they're being evaluated." Data processes appeared to enable both individual and collective goal-setting for improvement over and above being a mechanism for evaluating educators and administrators.</p> <p>Further, teachers for the most part established trusting relationships with administrative and pedagogical leaders (i.e., DLCs, LLs), as well as colleagues, from which they could collaboratively monitor student outcomes and refine their practice. In this respect, findings suggested that participants' experiences of trust provided stakeholders with opportunities to exercise their responsibilities in relation to their roles. For example, CE (CT, S2) noted the safety in his school's learning community. He suggested that working with his school's LL (LC):Has made myself, and... most of us, very aware...that we have [LC] and we can pick her brain...but it's also got us so that we pick each other's brains. And we criticize each other and to get to the point where you can criticize safely is an amazing accomplishment. Others described how trust was a necessary condition for professional learning to be effective in achieving goals. For example, FN (CT, S1) saw trust as necessary for authentic, constructive, and collaborative professional learning:I think for us to work together to elevate the profession...we have to be able to work with people we trust...because you have to earnestly go to the person expecting and wanting the criticism and be willing to both hear it and do something about it. Still, in School 5, where the literacy initiative was in its early stages, JK (VP, S5) noted how complex it can be to build trust. She described how the literacy initiative is "very isolated right now...It's difficult as a newcomer for MV [CT, LL], she's cautiously asking people to come on board. They are, but you know it takes more than a few minutes to build trust...I think people here are a bit nervous about having outsiders in their room."</p> <p>Further, evidence showed how, in four of the five schools, school-level administrators communicated a trusting stance towards members of their literacy teams. They described literacy leaders and/or literacy team members as "professional" (ZB, S2), "a strong lit team" (AQ, S1), and as "leaders within the school" (SZ, S2). ZB (P, S2) described how he "trusts the people involved, I trust the leadership involved, and so if I can't make it to a series of meetings...I know it's in good hands because there's just full trust there." This sentiment was echoed by other school-level administrators who emphasized their roles as <emph>supports</emph> to teachers. For example, AQ, (P, S1) saw her role as to "support the staff...because they're working hard. I see the literacy project not just supporting literacy but supporting a lot of professional development."</p> <p>Our analyses suggested that, in schools where the literacy initiative had taken a stronghold (i.e., schools 1, 2, 3), administrators were not focused on "supervising" how school-level goals were being enacted by teachers. Instead, their goal was to support teachers to build on their interest in supporting students' literacy. For example, AQ (P, S1) described her "goal to support the staff who are working on the project, because I think that there are a group of staff in our school that are really passionate about this. They're working hard." Participants also described how trust was developing between educators in School 5, which was newest to the initiative with an informally designated instructional leader (LL), It was only in School 4, where the literacy team struggled to come together in a coordinated and formalized way, that the school-level administrator seemed to trust only the Literacy Leader with whom he worked closely (he made no references to trusting the team overall). This finding suggests that building trust takes time, is relational, and cannot be assumed even in an initiative where stakeholders overall seemed to be highly invested in distributing responsibility (and accountability) across the system.</p> <hd id="AN0163484615-14">Improvement efforts consonant with beliefs and values</hd> <p>Our findings suggest that stakeholders in this context could also exercise responsibility in a coordinated way because they each played a meaningful role in developing and building from goals they perceived as important for learners. For example, our analysis of documents revealed that, as priorities were developed, most school-level leaders created school goals based on the goals teachers had chosen. These school-level goals were aggregated by district-level leaders to create goals for the improvement plans they were required to develop for the MoE. The result was that goals were developed from classroom-level performance-based assessments based on what educators and school-level leaders perceived as students' needs, and were aligned across the district. The school- and district-level decision to focus on adolescent literacy was further enabled by the MoE's open-ended approach to fostering improvement, including providing latitude for districts to choose an improvement focus. The MoE also supported (and may have shaped) the district's choice by providing funding for literacy-based initiatives. Thus, overall, the goal-setting processes established at various levels allowed for stakeholders to make choices based on their perceived priorities which, when coordinated, allowed them to create goal-alignment across the system.</p> <p>Teachers and LLs emphasized how the goals of the literacy initiative were commensurate with their beliefs about learning and/or what they believed to be important for students. For example, teachers and LLs described how they were supporting students to make meaning from text and helping them build literacy skills that were vitally important for ongoing learning beyond the confines of current classrooms. For example, RS (CT, S3) stated how she was planning on building skills that would "Carry them through the rest of their life. Because these are all skills that will work...not just...for all their academic classes but in life beyond, too, right? So that's really what I'm focusing on...it's a high, tall order."</p> <p>Nearly all district- and school-level leaders also articulated the ways in which the literacy initiative resonated with what they valued for students' learning. Some leaders described how they felt the literacy initiative helped put a focus on reading and learning processes while de-emphasizing the importance of specific content knowledge. For example, JB (DoI) described herself as thinking that:What we have to do is support [teachers] in seeing that it isn't so much the subject area, it's the process, you know, that there are different kinds of literacies. And that reading across the content is important, and that it's the focus on the student and then the literacy and then the subject, not the subject first. Just as teachers had, many leaders described the skills being taught as important for students throughout their lifetimes rather than for attaining success within a particular class. While most remained distant from the day-to-day instructional realities of teachers' lives, they strongly valued the principle of supporting students to actively learn through their reading. For example, MI (DLC) described how "that whole metacognitive and self-reflective side...is just so powerful when it's being combined...if we can teach them those metacognitive skills, we've set them up for a lifetime."</p> <p>Classroom teachers and literacy leaders were more likely to articulate how their values were shared with others as they worked closely on supporting students' literacy. For example, CB (CT, S2) described how she chose to work with specific colleagues because "We care about the kids, and their education is what we put first...we want to be progressive and...help them learn, and we want to see them read... we all have the same goal." BL (LL, S1) described how, because of her role, she has:the opportunity to share my thinking, explore ideas with like-minded colleagues [which] has...helped me be more articulate in determining 'What do I value as a teacher? What are my beliefs about teaching and learning?'...Working with others has...forced me to have conversations with teachers around what I'm doing and why? What are the kids doing and why?...Getting to the heart of teaching. That said, there were times when goal-setting processes did not work as seamlessly and shared values were not as evident across layers. In School 4, where not as much trust had been evident, the LL (FO) did not co-construct goals with the literacy team based on the results of the data in each of their classrooms. FO (LL) described how they set goals based on their "gut feeling" rather than careful scoring of the PBAs and because those had been students' needs in the past, he assumed that "over time...that's where kids seem to be weak in grade eight at that level when they come in." It was in School 4 where the literacy team also most struggled to come together as a team. There the LL noted how every time we meet "it's always been a different group" and ultimately "some drifted away."</p> <p>In addition to describing how the principles of the literacy initiative fit with their own values about their priorities for students, school-and district-level administrators also expressed how the initiative aligned with their beliefs about how to lead change in their contexts. Many school- and board-level administrators described the value of balancing educators' interests and autonomy with the supports they were able to provide as leaders (e.g., supports for interpreting student data; substitute teacher funding). They also described the importance of distributing leadership amongst educators and across layers of the system to promote buy-in and sustainability. For example, ZB (P, S2) said: "I think that with good teacher-leadership, which is sort of peer-leadership as opposed to sort of top-down stuff, I think you'll see more people coming into the literacy initiative." AQ (P, S1) stated:I don't see the role of the administrator as being the one who is the driving force. The problem with that is when the administrator moves on, or even if you allow one teacher to be the driving force, when that person moves on everything falls apart. So, I think it's really important that you encourage people, you support them. Many administrators discussed the value of taking on the role of "cheerleader" for the literacy initiative by speaking of it enthusiastically during school-wide meetings and when hiring new teachers. QR (P, S3) said "If you keep talking about it, it's going to trigger – people are going to start thinking more about it." CR (VP, S3) talked of the power of having at least one administrator who is demonstrably "passionate" about literacy.</p> <p>We interpreted from leaders' comments that their beliefs about leading change were compatible with this initiative. Leaders were able to work in ways that aligned with their beliefs because of the flexible expectations and supportive structures built into this provincial and district context. Overall, our findings suggest that conditions in this context enabled all stakeholders to set directions consonant with their values and beliefs, whether that was in relation to literacy needs of learners and/or their beliefs in how a change effort should unfold. The results suggest that stakeholders were enabled to exercise responsibility in relation to their respective positions.</p> <hd id="AN0163484615-15">Opportunities for professional learning</hd> <p>Our literature review had suggested that an important way for teachers to exercise responsibility is to ensure they have opportunities to advance their professional learning in relation to their goals. In this study, our findings showed that support for teachers' and pedagogical leaders' professional learning was created by stakeholders across the system. For example, with MoE supplementary funding, the district was able to fund one 'block' of time for a site-based LL at each school which created opportunities for LLs to come together as a network of learners and enabled teachers to work with LLs. Funding was also made available at the school-level to provide release time for teachers to engage in collaborative inquiry (Butler & Schnellert, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref157">15</reflink>]). Thus, as part of the initiative, participants engaged in cycles of goal setting, teaching, and monitoring outcomes in ways that enabled them to take responsibility for improving student learning. While engaging in professional learning opportunities, teachers and pedagogical leaders (LLs, DLCs) had opportunities to engage in activities with potential to support their professional learning and practice development.</p> <p>In terms of creating those opportunities, both district-level and school-based leaders often described their own roles as creating supports that enabled teachers to achieve their goals for learners. District-level leaders described their support in terms of providing resources, time, structures, and encouragement. For example, AA, the district superintendent cautioned that funding on its own is not enough to fuel change but is effective when it bolsters existing on-the-ground interest. He used the analogy of starting a fire by describing the funding as the match, "but all the tinder was already there. Somebody gives you a match and you've got tinder underneath, you can make something happen, but if there was no tinder then that's really no good." JB (DoI) outlined how she had supported the literacy project in a targeted way. "We have invested our literacy grant over the past three years at the secondary level." She then described how she fostered professional learning by "hiring good people and supporting them...I really have to advocate for positions like teacher consultants who have great pedagogy and great interpersonal skills."</p> <p>Most school-level administrators also described the ways in which they supported teachers to collaborate and engage in professional learning by creatively leveraging funding. For example, AQ (P, S1) described how she supported teachers who were engaged in the literacy initiative: "We've pulled money out of other places to support...the whole lesson study process...that's a big cost because of [substitute teachers]." School-based administrators often sought to create opportunities based first on what teachers wanted to learn about. LS (VP, T, S2) perceived her role as "supporting professional development as our literacy team would like to see it happen." These examples illustrate how school- and district-level leaders saw themselves as exercising their responsibilities by fostering change in classrooms through supports to teachers' professional learning. To underscore the importance of a supportive school administrator, JC (DP) noted from her 'outsider' perspective that "one of the biggest barriers in the schools we've seen struggling, is when we don't have...strong administrator presence."</p> <p>Consistent with the stance of most administrators, all literacy leaders described themselves as supports to colleagues' learning and development. For example, BL (LL, S1) talked about how she had responded to teachers' existing enthusiasm to share professional resources, strategies, and lessons by building a structured collaborative learning time. She created literacy lunches through which the team had the chance to explore and discuss a chosen professional book: "And this is kind of just my push, 'Let's meet regularly,' ...and if we don't make that commitment now and book time off, then other things will get in the way." In sum, stakeholders from across the district articulated the ways in which they engaged in, and/or created, opportunities for professional learning. For some, participating in structured learning activities was part of their role (e.g., for LLs), but for classroom-based teachers, engagement was voluntary. Thus, the frequency with which teachers described taking up opportunities to participate in structured learning/collaboration time reflected the value they ascribed to the opportunities afforded to them. Overall, participants in leadership roles perceived that their provision of supports for professional learning was valuable in terms of focusing attention on student needs and working towards shared goals.</p> <hd id="AN0163484615-16">Student- and improvement-focused data</hd> <p>According to participants, the way in which student data were generated and used created a key condition that supported them to create mutually valued goals reflective of student needs and work towards improving practice. Our review of project documents had shown how school-based, grade-level literacy teams created PBAs that were situated meaningfully in classroom contexts. Educators and researchers collaboratively scored PBAs using provincial Performance Standards for Reading Information rubrics. In participating schools, teachers had also chosen to use and co-interpret a second measure focused on students' self-regulated engagement in reading, the LTRQ (Butler et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref158">14</reflink>]; Butler & Cartier, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref159">12</reflink>]; Cartier & Butler, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref160">19</reflink>]). Researchers shared the results of the LTRQ by providing class profile summaries. Drawing on both sources of data, researchers worked with school teams in the Fall to identify both classroom- and grade-level goals and monitor outcomes in the Spring.</p> <p>Overwhelmingly, findings suggested that stakeholders perceived the data as generating worthwhile information about students that had the potential to support ongoing improvements in teaching. Classroom-based educators perceived the data as helpful for assessing student needs and refining their planning and instruction. For example, LA (LL, CT, S3) described it as "really informative to get the PBA done...It helps me to plan differently for the two classes, because I can see the different strengths and areas of need."</p> <p>Others described how data helped their team come together to develop goals for students' learning. The vast majority of participants appreciated the opportunity to engage as teams to interpret and build from data. For instance, LS (VP, CT, S2) stated that engaging with data together "has focused our team" and helps the LL determine who, how, and why she will support classroom teachers "without anybody thinking that it's just random, that there's been some evidence to support these choices." Further, these processes seemed to create opportunities for stakeholders to take ownership over their collaborative efforts to continuously improve. MV (CT, S5) thought:There is a lot of power in the group scoring in that teachers have an opportunity to talk... because then you know what you're working on together or even if it's different you know how to support each other in your learning. One teacher, CL (S1) lamented that, because she was teaching senior level grades, and funding structures were aimed towards grade eight groups that year, she was not adequately supported to collaboratively interpret data. Her comments revealed the complexity of bridging from assessments to improvements given the value she ascribed to the team scoring, interpreting, and planning meetings:You need that time to be able to score, and then you need time to be able to talk about that and set the goals, and then you need time to look at...what worked and what didn't to make other goals, and then you need time to do that PBA again and compare it. Administrators emphasized again and again how the usefulness of data for reporting to the MoE was secondary to its relevance for teachers in classrooms. For example, at the district level, administrators were able to fold school-level data into aggregates that they then used to report to the MoE. While data were useful for reporting, they emphasized their sense that data were most meaningful at the school-level. AA (S) discussed how "the global data that I've seen and the report that went to the ministry on this shows an improvement...it's powerful data." At the same time, he said "it's much more important that it happens at the school level." JC (DP) talked about how valuable PBA data were because they were "site based...because...[teachers] can see this information based on 'my students,' and 'I can design professional development...in relation to what the students at my school need and what I need from professional development'."</p> <p>School-based administrators made similar remarks in which they emphasized first the usability for teachers and then their responsibility to create reports for the MoE and public. For example, ZB (P, S2) contrasted assessments that both satisfy accountability demands <emph>and</emph> fuel improvement against assessments used simply for accounting purposes:This is exciting stuff because it was generated through the kids in the school...it was scored by our teachers...So we're embracing it for the right reasons, we're not trying to dot 'I's' and cross 'T's for the Ministry. We want to do this because if we think we have a good handle on this data it will benefit our students here at this school. AQ (P, S1) described how, through using assessments to alter instruction, teachers were generating new professional learning:If you give [teachers] a workshop on...assessment for learning, then they...go, 'Yeah, yeah, yeah' but they don't integrate it into their practice. But I think this opportunity has been very powerful because ... using the assessment tools...they've learned about 'What does it really mean to assess kids and use that for your teaching?' However, it was in School 4 (where the team struggled to take hold) that both the principal and the LL, in separate interviews, communicated a mistrust towards student data, wondering if gains that were made were more attributable to students' developmental growth than instruction.</p> <p>Our findings suggest that assessment data in this context, while useful for accounting purposes, was highly valued by most participants because the data and the processes surrounding data use were perceived as a support to improvement. Teachers in classrooms experienced the data as credible when they were trying to build understanding about what their students needed in light of their goals for adolescent literacy. The degree to which data were experienced as supportive, rather than evaluative, seemed to be attributable to the flexibility of reporting expectations laid out by the MoE. This flexibility freed administrators to de-emphasize the data's summative properties and emphasize its usefulness for supporting change, as well as the district- and school-level administrators' priority on data as informative for classroom-based improvement.</p> <hd id="AN0163484615-17">Summary</hd> <p>In this section, we described conditions participants associated with their ability to enact their responsibilities both individually and in a coordinated way. Our abductive analyses identified how four kinds of conditions were experienced by different stakeholders in this context: the presence of trusting relationships; opportunities for stakeholders to work towards goals and in ways that were consonant with their beliefs and values; investments in professional learning; and approaches to generating, interpreting, and building from data that were equally meaningful across all levels of the system. These supports, when combined, appeared to foster opportunities for participants to focus on student learning and continuous improvement in line with their role-specific professional responsibilities.</p> <hd id="AN0163484615-18">Discussion</hd> <p>In an educational system, stakeholders are reciprocally accountable to one another, students, and the public to fulfill their responsibilities for educational outcomes (Darling-Hammond et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref161">31</reflink>]). The research reported here responds to the debate waging over how to establish accountability frameworks in ways that empower all stakeholders to exercise responsibility for student learning. To that end, our investigation considered how conditions could be established within a systems-level change initiative that recognized stakeholders' differing roles and supported shared responsibility for educational processes and outcomes.</p> <p>Our review of the literature suggested that a productive approach would be to create a responsibility-oriented accountability framework. To that end, one contribution of this research is that it identified how conditions were being established within one multi-layered change effort to support stakeholders' abilities to share responsibility for student learning. Aligned with the literature, patterns in our findings showed the importance of trust, individuals' opportunities to work in line with their beliefs and values, opportunities for professional learning, and creation of data that focus on student learning needs and fuel continuous improvement. Our research contributes to the literature by examining how stakeholders from across levels of an educational system, not just teachers, experienced and/or contributed to these conditions. Further, by examining patterns across school sites, we were able to describe how these conditions emerged (or not). For example, we uncovered how the most established learning communities (Schools 1, 2, and 3) experienced these conditions most strongly, while a more developing learning team with a new LL did so (School 5), but not quite as consistently (e.g., they were still building trust as a team). In School 4 conditions for productive change were not as strongly in place. In this context, the literacy team struggled to come together with leaders (admin and pedagogical) to work in a coordinated way.</p> <p>As in other research, trust emerged as an important factor in supporting the improvement effort studied here. Previous research has highlighted how a managerial accountability approach conveys a mistrust of teachers (Codd, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref162">24</reflink>]; Darling-Hammond, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref163">27</reflink>]; Debard & Kubow, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref164">36</reflink>]; Helgøy & Homme, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref165">45</reflink>]). In this study, educators and leaders alike were trusted as experts capable of engaging in responsible decision making, which in turn freed them to focus on students in their care (Chatelier & Rudolph, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref166">21</reflink>]). In this context, both teachers and leaders (administrative and pedagogical) were positioned as professionals achieving goals commensurate with their responsibilities. In this respect, our findings resonate with those of Tolo et al. ([<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref167">93</reflink>]) who suggested that effective leaders position themselves as "responsible participators in the profession's knowledge-building process" rather than as "outside the profession" either blindly trusting or distrusting teachers during a change initiative (p. 76).</p> <p>The bidirectional influence between trust and responsibility (Lauermann & Karabenick, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref168">57</reflink>]) is instructive for those seeking to restructure managerial forms of accountability. Our findings align with Datnow et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref169">34</reflink>]) argument that "fully participat[ing] in routines rooted in professional accountability may seem like a risky short-term move to school leaders," but that building trust through professional accountability systems will go further to supporting improvements in instruction (p. 129). Our findings, including those related to the least successful team at School 4, also support Darling-Hammond's ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref170">27</reflink>]) assertion that the establishment of trusting environments is a precondition from which professional learning can follow (see also Bryk & Schneider, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref171">9</reflink>]; Cranston, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref172">25</reflink>]), which might be due to teachers' decreased vulnerability when taking responsibility for student learning (Lauermann & Karabenick, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref173">57</reflink>]). In this context we also found that teachers were supported to engage in trying out new practices responsibly, suggesting that trust throughout the system was characterized by a "shared understanding that teachers were continuous learners and autonomous professionals" (Scribner et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref174">81</reflink>], p. 67).</p> <p>Another important finding was that all stakeholders in this context had opportunities to work towards goals they perceived as important from their particular roles. While much literature has focused on the ways in which accountability regimes can constrain teachers' professionalism and ability to be responsive to students (Buchanan, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref175">10</reflink>]), this research identifies the importance of providing both teachers and administrators with the freedom to act in line with their beliefs in service of mutually valued goals. Leaders in this study were sharing responsibility for student learning (Cranston, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref176">26</reflink>]), rather than focusing on managing teachers (Hargreaves & Shirley, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref177">44</reflink>]). A benefit for teachers seemed to be that they had opportunities to work towards goals they valued without having to advocate for their professional autonomy (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref178">23</reflink>]). At the same time, school- and district-level administrators, while responsible for formally accounting to the MoE, had the space to shape goals worked on across the system and also support teachers based on their beliefs about leading change.</p> <p>Our findings here contrast with research conducted in other jurisdictions where principals have been found to have great difficulty in navigating their roles as both managers and instructional-leaders (Bloxham et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref179">7</reflink>]; Lemoine et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref180">61</reflink>]; Shaked & Schechter, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref181">82</reflink>]). In those jurisdictions, school-based administrators can be faced with the distressing task of buffering against top-down demands in order to protect teachers' autonomy and professionalism (Gobby et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref182">41</reflink>]). Research has demonstrated just how difficult it can be for school-level leaders to move away from routines defined by the pressures of external accountability even when both teachers and leaders <emph>want</emph> to shift towards prioritizing student and professional learning (i.e., professional accountability; Datnow et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref183">34</reflink>]). As a result, Datnow et al. ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref184">34</reflink>]) have argued that even though both bureaucratic and professional accountability aim to improve student outcomes, the two are just too incompatible to overcome the pressure imposed by external accountability. Findings from this study suggest the promise of a responsibility-oriented accountability framework where change processes are undertaken by professionals in different roles working across layers in a coordinated fashion.</p> <p>Consistent with prior research, our findings also foreground the importance of supporting professional learning in ways that fuel ongoing shifts in practice (Birenbaum et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref185">6</reflink>]; Butler et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref186">17</reflink>]; Camburn, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref187">20</reflink>]). In contrast to initiatives grounded in a managerial approach, where what should change is stipulated (e.g., based on large-scale test results) without providing supports needed to get there (Anderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref188">2</reflink>]; Nagy, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref189">68</reflink>]; O'Day, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref190">70</reflink>]), in the context we studied supports to professional learning were abundant. For teachers, they seemed to achieve their responsibilities by participating in multiple kinds of professional learning opportunities, which they valued as empowering. This finding aligned with the notion put forward by Lauermann and Karabenick ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref191">57</reflink>]) that supporting professional learning may boost educators' confidence in their ability to improve, thereby growing their readiness to assume responsibility (see also Lauermann, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref192">56</reflink>]). As a result of engaging in professional learning, teachers may also perceive that they are able to increase their capacity to meet the needs of diverse learners (Darling-Hammond, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref193">28</reflink>]; Mullen & Schunk, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref194">67</reflink>]; Opfer et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref195">72</reflink>]). In our context, we found that leaders exercised their responsibilities primarily by investing in teachers' professional learning (consistent with Tolo et al., [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref196">93</reflink>]). What these findings suggest is that supports for, and engagement in, professional learning can act as a medium through which individuals enact their responsibilities for improving students' learning from their respective roles.</p> <p>Another key finding here was that data generated through the initiative were perceived by the vast majority of stakeholders as a support to improving teaching and learning. In contrast to more output-oriented managerial accountability frameworks which seek "improvement on tests through a system of rewards and sanctions" (Datnow et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref197">34</reflink>]), in this context data processes seemed to allow leaders to fulfill their sense of responsibility to account to the public while also allowing educators to autonomously make instructional decisions (Datnow, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref198">32</reflink>]), focus on student needs (Møller, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref199">66</reflink>]), and continually improve (Webster-Wright, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref200">103</reflink>]). The approaches to generating and using data in this context seemed to create opportunities for all stakeholders to fulfill their professional responsibilities by adopting a formative "aim for improvement" (Lillejord, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref201">62</reflink>], p. 3) and further suggest the importance of engaging stakeholders in data processes they perceive to be credible for supporting on-the-ground change. Our findings resonate with Hult & Edstrom's ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref202">48</reflink>]) calls for policy makers to recognize the value of classroom-based, internal assessments which "indicate teachers' ambitions to improve teaching [but] are generally overlooked in evaluation and school-policy research" (p. 320). Our study shows how leaders' roles can be constructed productively in an accountability context where they are able to focus on supporting school-level data processes while respecting educators' choices about the data they value.</p> <p>Overall, our research addresses the crux of a problem that has undermined improvement and accountability agendas over time and across contexts. That is, while stakeholders from across a system may share a sense of responsibility for student learning and accountability to the public, the ways in which accountability has been invoked can create conflicting goals for members across the system (Datnow et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref203">34</reflink>]). Indeed, a key aspect of the problem lies in "policy which aims to be directed at the particular needs of students [but] can [paradoxically orient] ... care and responsibility away from the student" (Chatelier & Rudolph, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref204">21</reflink>], p. 7). In this research, we studied a context in which stakeholders from across a system seemed to be working in a coordinated way to fulfill their sense of responsibility to students, each other, and the public. Our study adds by showing how a supportive, multi-layered educational context can positively influence stakeholders seeking to achieve their respective responsibilities from across levels of the system.</p> <p>While our findings are promising in showing how an initiative can create conditions that support shared responsibility, future research might address limitations of our study. First, our analysis did not attend to understanding how other stakeholders, including governing bodies, parent organizations, school boards, the Teachers' Federation, or students conceived of their responsibilities or roles in advancing education. Future research might include the perspectives of stakeholders beyond those of school district personnel. Second, this study was part of a larger study and while we directly asked participants about their goals and roles in the educational change initiative, our interviews were not designed to ask directly about responsibility. This analysis was motivated by our inductive analysis of interview transcripts, which revealed a strong focus on themes relevant to participants' experiences of responsibility. Still, future research might more directly address how individuals conceive of, and act upon, their sense of responsibility in the context of school improvement initiatives. Finally, to address the limitation of our study's one-year time frame, future programs of research could extend over time to advance understanding about how fluctuating contextual factors influence stakeholders' ongoing investment in mutually valued goals.</p> <p>In conclusion, in the initiative studied we uncovered an overall emphasis on student learning and teacher capacity building in service of achieving shared goals for students. Perhaps the most notable conclusion of our study is that stakeholders across the district studied were not being told to feel responsible but were supported instead to build from an existing, and perhaps growing, sense of professional responsibility focused on students' learning. By revealing stakeholders' experiences and perceptions, our findings suggest <emph>how</emph> improvement efforts can be constructed so that all stakeholders are enabled to share responsibility for students' learning across an educational system.</p> <hd id="AN0163484615-19">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>This project was supported by a standard research grant to the second author from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. We are thankful for Stephanie Higginson's support with data collection. We would also like to thank the participants in this study for their willingness to share their experiences with the project team.</p> <hd id="AN0163484615-20">Declaration</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0163484615-21">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors declare that they have no competing interests.</p> <hd id="AN0163484615-22">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0163484615-23"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref133" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Agar M. The professional stranger: an informal introduction to ethnography. 19962; Academic Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref134" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson S, Leithwood K, Strauss T. Leading data use in schools: organizational conditions and practices at the school and district levels. Leadership and Policy in Schools. 2010; 9; 3: 292-327. 10.1080/15700761003731492</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref24" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Biesta G. Education, accountability, and the ethical demand: can the democratic potential of accountability be regained?. Educational Theory. 2004; 54; 3: 233-250. 10.1111/j.0013-2004.2004.00017.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref25" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Biesta GUljens M, Ylimaki RM. Lead learner or head teacher? Exploring connections between curriculum, leadership and evaluation in an 'Age of Measurement'. Bridging educational leadership, curriculum theory and didaktik. 2017; Springer International Publishing: 181-198. 10.1007/978-3-319-58650-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref120" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Birenbaum MWyatt-Smith C, Klenowski V, Colbert V. Conceptualizing assessment culture in school. Designing assessment for quality learning. 2014; Springer, Netherlands: 285-302. 10.1007/978-94-007-5902-2_18</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref121" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Birenbaum M, Kimron H, Shilton H, Shahaf-Barzilay R. Cycles of inquiry: formative assessment in service of learning and in classrooms and in school-based professional communities. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2009; 35; 4: 130-149. 10.1016/j.stueduc.2010.01.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref145" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bloxham R, Ehrich LC, Iyer R. Leading or managing? Assistant regional directors, school performance in queensland. Journal of Educational Administration. 2015; 55; 3: 354-373. 10.1108/JEA-12-2013-0129</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref123" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Brownlie, F, Feniak, C, & Schnellert, L. (2016). Student diversity (2nd Ed.). Markham, ON: Pembroke.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref171" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bryk AS, Schneider B. Trust in schools: a core resource for improvement. 2002; Russell Sage Foundation. 10.7758/9781610440967</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buchanan R. Teacher identity and agency in an era of accountability. Teachers and Teaching. 2015; 21; 6: 700-719. 10.1080/13540602.2015.1044329</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butler, D. L. (2011). Investigating self-regulated learning using in-depth case studies. In B. J. Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 346–360). New York, NY: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butler, D. L, & Cartier, S. C. (2004, May). Learning in varying activities: An explanatory framework and a new evaluation tool founded on a model of self-regulated learning. In Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Canadian society for studies in education, Winnipeg, MB.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butler, D. L, & Cartier, S. C. (2018). Advancing research and practice about self-regulated learning: The promise of in-depth case study methodologies. In D. H. Schunk, & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (2nd Ed, pp. 352–369). New York, NY: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butler, D. L, Cartier, S. C, Schnellert, L, Gagnon, F, & Giammarino, M. (2011). Secondary students' self-regulated engagement in reading: Researching self-regulation as situated in context. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 11(1), 73–105.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butler Deborah L, Schnellert Leyton. Collaborative inquiry in teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2012; 28; 8: 1206-1220. 10.1016/j.tate.2012.07.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butler, D. L. & Schnellert, L. (2020). Tracing cycles of teachers' self- and co-regulated practice within a professional learning network. In Professional learning networks: Facilitating transformation in diverse contexts with equity-seeking communities (pp. 74–108). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butler Deborah L, Schnellert Leyton, Cartier Sylvie C. Layers of Self- and Co-Regulation: Teachers Working Collaboratively to Support Adolescents' Self-Regulated Learning through Reading. Education Research International. 2013; 2013: 1-19. 10.1155/2013/845694</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butler Deborah L, Schnellert Leyton, MacNeil Kimberley. Collaborative inquiry and distributed agency in educational change: A case study of a multi-level community of inquiry. Journal of Educational Change. 2015; 16; 1: 1-26. 10.1007/s10833-014-9227-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cartier, S. C, & Butler, D. L. (2004, May). Elaboration and validation of the questionnaires and plan for analysis. In Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Canadian society for studies in education, Winnipeg, MB.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Camburn E. Embedded teacher learning opportunities as a site for reflective practice: an exploratory study. American Journal of Education. 2010; 116; 4: 463-489. 10.1086/653624</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chatelier S, Rudolph S. Teacher responsibility: Shifting care from student to (professional) self?. British Journal of Sociology of Education. 2018; 39; 1: 1-15. 10.1080/01425692.2017.1291328</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Christensen T, Lægreid P. Performance and accountability: a theoretical discussion and an empirical assessment. Public Organization Review. 2015; 15; 2: 207-225. 10.1007/s11115-013-0267-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cochran-Smith M, Lytle SL. Relationships of knowledge and practice: teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education. 1999; 24: 249-305. 10.2307/1167272</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Codd J. Teachers as 'managed professionals' in the global education industry: the New Zealand experience. Educational Review. 2005; 57; 2: 193-206. 10.1080/0013191042000308369</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cranston J. Relational trust: the glue that binds a professional learning community. Alberta Journal of Educational Research. 2011; 57; 1: 59-72</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cranston N. School leaders leading: professional responsibility not accountability as the key focus. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 2013; 41; 2: 129-142. 10.1177/1741143212468348</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond L. Performance-based assessment and educational equity. Harvard Educational Review. 1994; 64; 1: 5-31. 10.17763/haer.64.1.j57n353226536276</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond L. Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record. 2004; 106; 6: 1047-1085. 10.1177/016146810410600602</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond LHargreaves A. Policy and change: getting beyond bureaucracy. Extending educational change. 2005; Springer: 362-387. 10.1007/1-4020-4453-4_18</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond L. The flat world and education. How America's commitment to equity will determine our future. 2010; Teachers College Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond L, Wilhoit G, Pittenger L. Accountability for college and career readiness: developing a new paradigm. Education Policy Analysis Archives. 2014; 22; 86: 1-34. 10.14507/epaa.v22n86.2014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Datnow A. Collaboration and contrived collegiality: revisiting Hargreaves in the age of accountability. Journal of Educational Change. 2011; 12; 2: 147-158. 10.1007/s10833-011-9154-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Datnow A, Hubbard L. Teacher capacity for and beliefs about data-driven decision making: a literature review of international research. Journal of Educational Change. 2016; 17; 1: 7-28. 10.1007/s10833-015-9264-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Datnow A, Lockton M, Weddle H. Redefining or reinforcing accountability? An examination of meeting routines in schools. Journal of Educational Change. 2020; 21; 1: 109-134. 10.1007/s10833-019-09349-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Day C, Elliot B, Kington A. Reform, standards and teacher identity: challenges of sustaining commitment. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2005; 21; 5: 563-577. 10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Debard R, Kubow PK. From compliance to commitment: the need for constituent discourse in implementing testing policy. Educational Policy. 2002; 16; 3: 387-405. 10.1177/08904802016003002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ehren M, Perryman J. Accountability of school networks: who is accountable to whom and for what?. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 2018; 46; 6: 942-959. 10.1177/1741143217717272</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Englund T, Solbrekke TDSugrue C, Solbrekke TD. Professional responsibility under pressure?. Professional responsibility: new horizons of praxis. 2011; Routledge: 57-71</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eteläpelto A, Vähäsantanen K, Hökkä P, Paloniemi S. What is agency? Conceptualizing professional agency at work. Educational Research Review. 2013; 10: 45-65. 10.1016/j.edurev.2013.05.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fullan M, Rincón-Gaillardo S, Hargreaves A. Professional capital as accountability. Education Policy Analysis Archives. 2015; 23; 15: 2-18. 10.14507/epaa.v23.1998</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gobby B, Keddie A, Blackmore J. Professionalism and competing responsibilities: moderating competitive performativity in school autonomy reform. Journal of Educational Administration and History. 2018; 50; 3: 159-173. 10.1080/00220620.2017.1399864</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenfield R, Rinaldi C, Proctor CP, Cardarelli A. Teachers' perceptions of a response to intervention (RTI) reform effort in an urban elementary school: a consensual qualitative analysis. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. 2010; 21; 1: 47-63. 10.1177/1044207310365499</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hargreaves DH. The new professionalism: the synthesis of professional and institutional development. Teaching and Teacher Education. 1994; 10; 4: 423-438. 10.1016/0742-051X(94)90023-X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hargreaves A, Shirley D. The fourth way. 2009; Corwin Press. 10.4135/9781452219523.n4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Helgøy I, Homme A. Towards a new professionalism in school?: A comparative study of teacher autonomy in Norway and Sweden. European Educational Research Journal. 2007; 6; 3: 232-249. 10.2304/eerj.2007.6.3.232</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Herman JLRyan K, Shepard L. Accountability and assessment in the service of learning: Is the public interest being served?. The future of test-based accountability. 2008; Routledge/Lawrence Erlbaum: 211-231</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holloway J, Sørensen TB, Verger A. Global perspectives on high-stakes teacher accountability policies: an introduction. Education Policy Analysis Archives. 2017; 25; 85: 1-14. 10.14507/epaa.25.3325</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hult A, Edström C. Teacher ambivalence towards school evaluation: promoting and ruining teacher professionalism. Education Inquiry. 2016; 7; 3: 305-325. 10.3402/edui.v7.30200</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hult A, Lundström U, Edström C. Balancing managerial and professional demands: school principals as evaluation brokers. Education Inquiry. 2016; 7; 3: 283-304. 10.3402/edui.v7.29960</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hursh D. The growth of high-stakes testing in the USA: accountability, markets and the decline in educational equality. British Educational Research Journal. 2005; 31; 5: 605-622. 10.1080/01411920500240767</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jennings JL, Bearak JM. «Teaching to the Test» in the NCLB era: how test predictability affects our understanding of student performance. Educational Researcher. 2014; 43; 8: 381-389. 10.3102/0013189X14554449</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelchtermans GSugrue C, Solbrekke TD. Professional responsibility: persistent commitment, perpetual vulnerability?. Professional responsibility: new horizons of praxis. 2011; Routledge: 113-126</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ketelaar E, Beijaard D, Boshuizen HP, Den Brok PJ. Teachers' positioning towards an educational innovation in the light of ownership, sense-making and agency. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2012; 28; 2: 273-282. 10.1016/j.tate.2011.10.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knoester MK, Au W. Standardized testing and school segregation: like tinder for fire?. Race, Ethnicity and Education. 2017; 20; 1: 1-14. 10.1080/13613324.2015.1121474</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koretz D. Moving beyond the failure of test-based accountability. American Educator. 2017; 41; 4: 22-26</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lauermann F. Teacher responsibility from the teacher's perspective. International Journal of Educational Research. 2014; 65: 75-89. 10.1016/j.ijer.2013.09.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lauermann F, Karabenick SA. Taking teacher responsibility into account(ability): explicating its multiple components and theoretical status. Educational Psychologist. 2011; 46; 2: 122-140. 10.1080/00461520.2011.558818</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lauermann F, Karabenick SA. The meaning and measure of teachers' sense of responsibility for educational outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2013; 30: 13-26. 10.1016/j.tate.2012.10.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee VE, Smith JB. Collective responsibility for learning and its effect on gains in achievement for early secondary students. American Journal of Education. 1996; 104; 2: 103-147. 10.1086/444122</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leithwood K, Earl L. Educational accountability effects: an international perspective. Peabody Journal of Education. 2000; 75; 4: 1-18. 10.1207/S15327930PJE7504_1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lemoine, P. A, Greer, D, McCormack, T. J, & Richardson, M. D. (2014). From managerial to instructional leadership: Barriers principals must overcome. In: New Waves – Educational Research & Development,17(1), 17–30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lillejord S. From "unintelligent" to intelligent accountability. Journal of Educational Change. 2020; 21; 1: 1-18. 10.1007/s10833-020-09379-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Louis KS. Trust and improvement in schools. Journal of Educational Change. 2007; 8; 1: 1-24. 10.1007/s10833-006-9015-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matteucci MC, Guglielmi D, Lauermann F. Teachers' sense of responsibility for educational outcomes and its associations with teachers' instructional approaches and professional wellbeing. Social Psychology of Education. 2017; 202; 2: 275-298. 10.1007/s11218-017-9369-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miles HB, Huberman AM, Saldaña J. Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. 20143; SAGE</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Møller J. School leadership in an age of accountability: tensions between managerial and professional accountability. Journal of Educational Change. 2009; 10; 1: 37-46. 10.1007/s10833-008-9078-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mullen CA, Schunk DH. A view of professional learning communities through three frames: leadership, organization, and culture. McGill Journal of Education. 2010; 45; 2: 185-203. 10.7202/045603ar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nagy P. The three roles of assessment: gatekeeping, accountability, and instructional diagnosis. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne De L'éducation. 2000; 25; 4: 262-279. 10.2307/158585</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Connor KE. "You choose to care": teachers, emotions and professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2008; 24; 1: 117-126. 10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Day JA. Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review. 2002; 72; 3: 293-329. 10.17763/haer.72.3.021q742t8182h238</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Day JA, Smith MSKirsch I, Braun H. Quality and equality in American education: systemic problems, systemic solutions. The dynamics of opportunity in America: evidence and perspectives. 2016; Springer International Publishing: 297-358. 10.1007/978-3-319-25991-8_9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Opfer VD, Pedder DJ, Lavicza Z. The influence of school orientation to learning on teachers' professional learning change. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2011; 22; 2: 193-214. 10.1080/09243453.2011.572078</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palermo C, Thomson MM. Large-scale assessment as professional development: teachers' motivations, ability beliefs, and values. Teacher Development. 2018; 23; 2: 191-212. 10.1080/13664530.2018.1536612</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perry L, McWilliam E. Accountability, responsibility, and school leadership. Journal of Educational Enquiry. 2007; 7; 1: 32-43</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rothman R, Marion SF. The next generation of state assessment and accountability. The Phi Delta Kappa International. 2016; 97; 8: 34-37. 10.1177/0031721716647016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ruohotie-Lyhty M, Moate J. Proactive and reactive dimensions of life-course agency: mapping student teachers' language learning experiences. Language and Education. 2015; 29; 1: 46-61. 10.1080/09500782.2014.927884</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sahlberg P. Rethinking accountability in a knowledge society. Journal of Educational Change. 2010; 11; 1: 45-61. 10.1007/s10833-008-9098-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schoenfeld AH. On learning and assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, & Practice. 2017; 24; 3: 369-378. 10.1080/0969594X.2017.1336986</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schnellert Leyton M, Butler Deborah L, Higginson Stephanie K. Co-constructors of data, co-constructors of meaning: Teacher professional development in an age of accountability. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2008; 24; 3: 725-750. 10.1016/j.tate.2007.04.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sciarra DG, Hunter MA. Resource accountability: enforcing state responsibilities for sufficient and equitable resources used effectively to provide all students a quality education. Education Policy Analysis Archives. 2015; 23; 21: 1-31. 10.14507/epaa.v23.2032</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scribner Jay Paredes, Hager Douglas R, Warne Tara R. The Paradox of Professional Community: Tales from Two High Schools. Educational Administration Quarterly. 2002; 38; 1: 45-76. 10.1177/0013161X02381003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaked H, Schechter C. School principals as mediating agents in education reforms. School Leadership & Management. 2017; 37; 1–2: 19-37. 10.1080/13632434.2016.1209182</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shepard LA, Penuel WR, Pellegrino JW. Using learning and motivation theories to coherently link formative assessment, grading practices, and large-scale assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 2018; 37; 1: 21-34. 10.1111/emip.12189</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sinclair A. The chameleon of accountability: forms and discourses. Accounting, Organizations and Society. 1995; 20; 2: 219-237. 10.1016/0361-3682(93)E0003-Y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sirotnik KA. Promoting responsible accountability in schools and education. The Phi Delta Kappan. 2002; 83; 9: 662-673. 10.1177/003172170208300908</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solbrekke TD, Englund T. Bringing professional responsibility back in. Studies in Higher Education. 2011; 36; 7: 847-861. 10.1080/03075079.2010.482205</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solbrekke TD, Sugrue CSugrue C, Solbrekke TD. Professional responsibility – back to the future. Professional responsibility: new horizons of praxis. 2011; Routledge: 9-28</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solbrekke TD, Sugrue CMcKee A, Eraut M. Learning from conceptions of professional responsibility and graduates' experiences in becoming novice practitioners. Learning trajectories, innovation and identity for professional development. 2012: London; Springer Science + Business Media: 193-214. 10.1007/978-94-007-1724-4_10</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spillane James P. External reform initiatives and teachers' efforts to reconstruct their practice: The mediating role of teachers' zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 1999; 31; 2: 143-175. 10.1080/002202799183205</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stake RE. Multiple case study analysis. 2006; Guilford</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sugrue C, Mertkan S. Professional responsibility, accountability and performativity among teachers: the leavening influence of CPD?. Teachers and Teaching. 2017; 23; 2: 171-190. 10.1080/13540602.2016.1203771</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tavory I, Timmermans S. Abductive analysis: theoreizing qualitative research. 2014; University of Chicago. 10.7208/chicago/9780226180458.001.0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tolo A, Lillejord S, Flórez P, Hopfenbeck TN. Intelligent accountability in schools: a study of how school leaders work with the implementation of assessment for learning. Journal of Educational Change. 2020; 21; 1: 59-82. 10.1007/s10833-019-09359-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torrance H. Blaming the victim: Assessment, examinations, and the responsibilisation of students and teachers in neo-liberal governance. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education. 2017; 38; 1: 83-96. 10.1080/01596306.2015.1104854</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tschannen-Moran M. Fostering teacher professionalism in schools: the role of leadership orientation and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly. 2009; 45; 2: 217-247. 10.1177/0013161X08330501</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tschannen-Moran M, Gareis CR. Principals, trust, and cultivating vibrant schools. Societies. 2015; 5; 2: 256-276. 10.3390/soc5020256</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vähäsantenan K, Hökkä P, Eteläpelto A, Rasku-Puttonen H, Littleton K. Teachers' professional identity negotiations in two different work organisations. Vocations and Learning. 2008; 1; 2: 131-148. 10.1007/s12186-008-9008-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verger, A, & Parcerisa, L. (2017). Accountability and education in the post-2015 scenario: International trends, enactment dynamics and socio-educational effects. (Paper prepared for the 2017/8 Global Education Monitoring Report 'Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments'). Retrieved from: https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/report/2017/accountability-education</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verger A, Parcerisa L, Fontdevila C. The growth and spread of large-scale assessments and test-based accountabilities: A political sociology of global education reforms. Educational Review. 2019; 71; 1: 5-30. 10.1080/00131911.2019.1522045</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> von der Embse NP, Pendergast LL, Segool N, Saeki E, Ryan S. The influence of test-based accountability policies on school climate and teacher stress across four states. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2016; 59: 492-502. 10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wagner RB. Accountability in education. 1989; Routledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallace CS, Priestley M. Teacher beliefs and the mediation of curriculum innovation in Scotland: a socio-cultural perspective on professional development and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 2011; 43; 3: 357-381. 10.1080/00220272.2011.563447</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Webster-Wright A. Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research. 2009; 79; 2: 702-739. 10.3102/0034654308330970</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> West A, Mattei P, Roberts J. Accountability and sanctions in English schools. British Journal of Educational Studies. 2011; 59; 1: 41-62. 10.1080/00071005.2010.529416</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White GW, Stepney CT, Hatchimonji DR, Moceri DC, Linsky AV, Reyes-Portillo JA, Elias MJ. The increasing impact of socioeconomics and race on standardized academic test scores across elementary, middle, and high schools. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2016; 86; 1: 10-23. 10.1037/ort0000122</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson M. Making measurement important for education: the crucial role of classroom assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 2018; 37; 1: 5-20. 10.1111/emip.12188</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yin RK. Case study research and applications: design and methods. 20186; Sage Publications</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Kimberley A. MacNeil; Deborah L. Butler and Leyton M. Schnellert</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref149"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref165"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref167"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref172"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref174"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref175"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref176"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref177"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref178"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref181"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref186"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref187"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref194"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref195"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref198"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref200"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref201"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1375954
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: From Accountability to Shared Responsibility: A Case Study of a Multi-Layered Educational Change Initiative
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22MacNeil%2C+Kimberley+A%2E%22">MacNeil, Kimberley A.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8050-0819">0000-0002-8050-0819</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Butler%2C+Deborah+L%2E%22">Butler, Deborah L.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Schnellert%2C+Leyton+M%2E%22">Schnellert, Leyton M.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Educational+Change%22"><i>Journal of Educational Change</i></searchLink>. Jun 2023 24(2):213-241.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 29
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Change%22">Educational Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Case+Studies%22">Case Studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Accountability%22">Accountability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stakeholders%22">Stakeholders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Districts%22">School Districts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Administrator+Attitudes%22">Administrator Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Leadership%22">Instructional Leadership</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Responsibility%22">Teacher Responsibility</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Administrator+Responsibility%22">Administrator Responsibility</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Professionalism%22">Professionalism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Empowerment%22">Teacher Empowerment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10833-021-09440-4
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1389-2843<br />1573-1812
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This research examined how stakeholders (n = 40) from one school district experienced "accountability" within a context where responsibility for student learning was being distributed across the system. Using a case study design, we examined: what conditions supported stakeholders in multiple roles to exercise responsibility for student learning? Analyses of documents and interviews revealed conditions that enabled teachers, instructional leaders, and administrators to share responsibility in relation to their roles, and empowered teachers to engage in inquiry for continuous improvement and build from their sense of professionalism and responsibility. Implications are discussed for empowering teachers, and other stakeholders, to exercise responsibility in the context of an accountability system.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1375954
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1375954
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10833-021-09440-4
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 29
        StartPage: 213
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Educational Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Case Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Accountability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Stakeholders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Districts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Administrator Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Leadership
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Responsibility
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Administrator Responsibility
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Professionalism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Empowerment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary Secondary Education
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: From Accountability to Shared Responsibility: A Case Study of a Multi-Layered Educational Change Initiative
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: MacNeil, Kimberley A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Butler, Deborah L.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Schnellert, Leyton M.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1389-2843
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1812
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 24
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Educational Change
              Type: main
ResultId 1