El sistema de rendición de cuentas académicas (RCA) en la República Dominicana implica evaluaciones, reporte de datos y capacitación a directores para mejorar los centros educativos. Aunque no conlleva consecuencias directas, se responsabiliza a docentes y directores por los resultados. Existe poca investigación sobre lo que los directores conocen de este sistema y cómo utilizan sus elementos para mejorar sus centros. El estudio buscó explorar sus perspectivas y cómo visualizan su papel al usar datos para la mejora, además de identificar diferencias entre centros de alto y bajo desempeño.
Este estudio cualitativo interpretativo entrevistó a diez directores en Santo Domingo. Los resultados muestran que todos tienen algún conocimiento sobre la RCA, aunque con diferentes interpretaciones. La mayoría la ve como una herramienta clave para retroalimentación a profesores, estudiantes y padres. Sin embargo, varía su nivel de conocimiento y uso de datos.
Todos los directores se consideran líderes, equilibrando funciones pedagógicas y operativas. Reconocen su rol dual como gestores y líderes, enfocándose en los procesos pedagógicos, aunque ninguno mencionó explícitamente el liderazgo instruccional. Las diferencias observadas entre directores de centros de alto y bajo desempeño parecen estar relacionadas con su comprensión y uso de un sistema de rendición de cuentas académicas.
Amdur, L., & Mero-Jaffe, I. (2017). Interrelations between policymakers’ intentions and school agents’ interpretation of accountability policy in Israel. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25, 84.
Anderson, J. B. (2008). Principals’ role and public primary schools’ effectiveness in four Latin American cities. The Elementary School Journal, 109(1), 36-60.
Argon, T. (2015). Teacher and administrator views on school principals’ accountability. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15(4), 925-944.
Brinia, V., Zimianiti, L., & Panagiotopoulos, K. (2014). The role of the principal’s emotional intelligence in primary education leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(4_suppl), 28-44.
Bush, T. (2011). Theories of educational leadership and management. Sage.
Camm, F., & Stecher, B. M. (2010). Analyzing the Operation of Performance-Based Accountability Systems for Public Services. Technical Report. RAND Corporation.
Carless, D., & Dimmock, C. (2001). The principal and curriculum change: A Hong Kong case study. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 21(1), 30-44.
Carnoy, M., Elmore, R., & Siskin, L. (Eds.). (2003). The new accountability: High schools and high-stakes testing. Routledge.
Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J., & Lindsay, C. A. 2021. How Principals Affect Students and Schools: A Systematic Synthesis of Two Decades of Research. New York: The Wallace Foundation. Available at http://www.wallacefoundation.org/principalsynthesis.
Gumus, S., Bulut, O., & Bellibas, M. S. (2013). The relationship between principal leadership and teacher collaboration in Turkish primary schools: A multilevel analysis. Education Research and Perspectives, 40, 1.
Gurr, D., & Drysdale, L. (2016). Successful school leadership: case studies of four Singapore primary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(3), 270-287.
Hamilton, L. S., Schwartz, H. L., Stecher, B. M., & Steele, J. L. (2013). Improving accountability through expanded measures of performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(4), 453-475. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311325659
Hanushek, E., & Raymond, M. (2001). The confusing world of educational accountability. National Tax Journal, 54(2), 365-384.
Hoppey, D., & McLeskey, J. (2013). A case study of principal leadership in an effective inclusive school. The Journal of Special Education, 46(4), 245-256.
Lee, J., & Lee, M. (2020). Is “whole child” education obsolete? Public school principals’ educational goal priorities in the era of accountability. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(5), 856-884.
Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. (2004). Educational administration: Concepts and practices. Thomson.
Marope, P. T. M. (2014). Improving the equity of quality and learning in education: A systemic approach. In From schooling to learning. UNESCO.
O’Day, J. A. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 293-329.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2016) PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: science, reading, mathematic and financial literacy. OECD Publishing.
Paufler, N. A., & Sloat, E. F. (2020). Using standards to evaluate accountability policy in context: School administrator and teacher perceptions of a teacher evaluation system. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 64, 100806.
Qian, H., & Walker, A. (2019). Reconciling top-down policy intent with internal accountability: The role of Chinese school principals. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 31(4), 495-517.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2004). McREL’s balanced leadership framework: Developing the science of educational leadership. ERS Spectrum, 22(1), 4-10.
