The school accountability system (SAS) in the Dominican Republic involves assessments, data reporting, and principal training for school improvement. Although it does not include direct consequences, it emphasizes measuring and reporting student achievement, implying a level of responsibility for teachers and principals in school outcomes. This study addressed the lack of research on principals’ knowledge of school accountability and their use of it to enhance performance. The purpose was to capture principals’ perspectives on the system and their roles in data-driven school improvement, as well as to explore differences between higher and lower-performing schools.
This qualitative research employed an interpretative approach, interviewing ten principals in Santo Domingo. Findings indicate that while all principals are aware of SAS, their understanding varies. Most recognize its elements and use data for analysis, sharing, and feedback with teachers, students, parents, and the broader school community. They see accountability as a key tool for school quality management and improvement. However, the depth of their knowledge and data utilization varies.
All participants view themselves as leaders, balancing pedagogical tasks, operational factors, and motivation. They acknowledged their dual roles as both managers and leaders, with most prioritizing the leadership of the pedagogical process. However, none explicitly identified with the concept of instructional leadership. Differences emerged between principals in higher and lower-performing schools, linked to their understanding of school accountability and data use. These insights suggest a need for further development in principals’ instructional leadership to foster improved school outcomes.
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.
