I will never forget the moment a principal in a previous district contacted me. She informed me she had her resignation letter in her hand. She’d been named Principal of the Year just eighteen months earlier. “I can’t lead anymore,” she told me. “Every decision requires three approvals, two reports, and a justification memo. My teachers are frustrated. I’m frustrated. We’ve lost our spark.”
That conversation changed how I thought about accountability forever.
We often get accountability wrong in education; not because we lack good intentions, but because we confuse control with leadership. The traditional compliance-based approach treats accountability as surveillance: mandating identical practices across diverse schools, requiring exhaustive documentation of every decision, and measuring success through process adherence rather than student outcomes. This creates what Patrick Lencioni calls “artificial harmony,” surface-level compliance that masks deeper disengagement and declining innovation.
Here’s what happens when accountability becomes micromanagement: talented leaders stop taking ownership, teachers implement programs without adapting them to student needs, and innovation dies because the risk of failure outweighs potential rewards. We might achieve consistency, but we sacrifice the contextual responsiveness that authentic learning communities require.
So what’s the right approach?
The most effective accountability models share three essential characteristics: they clarify non-negotiables, intentionally build capacity, and utilize transparency as a tool for growth rather than punishment.
First, define the “what” with absolute clarity, but let go of the “how.”
The schools and districts that thrive in today’s complex environment have identified their core commitments, which may include promoting student growth in literacy and numeracy, ensuring equitable access to rigorous learning, and fostering safe and inclusive school cultures. These become the immovable standards against which all schools are held accountable. However, how each building achieves these outcomes remains flexible, allowing principals to leverage their team’s strengths and respond to their community’s unique context.
As Simon Sinek reminds us, leadership is not about being in charge. It is about taking care of those in your charge.” When we clarify desired results but empower leaders to determine their path forward, we signal trust while maintaining high expectations.
Second, invest in capability before demanding capacity.
The greatest accountability systems I’ve witnessed operate on a simple principle: never hold someone accountable for something they haven’t been equipped to accomplish. This involves providing robust professional learning, dedicated coaching, collaborative planning time, and access to resources, all of which are essential before measuring performance.
Consider how this plays out practically. Instead of evaluating principals on their instructional leadership, high-functioning districts create principal learning communities where leaders study best practices together, observe each other’s schools, and receive individualized coaching. Accountability becomes developmental rather than punitive, focusing on growth trajectories over time rather than single-point-in-time judgments.
Third, make data visible and actionable for everyone.
Transparency transforms accountability from something done to people into something leaders embrace for themselves and their teams. When student achievement data, school climate surveys, and resource allocation information are accessible to all stakeholders, presented in clear, user-friendly formats, schools can effectively self-monitor, identify areas for improvement, and celebrate progress.
This approach shifts the central office role from compliance auditor to capacity builder. Rather than asking “Did you follow our directive?” the question becomes “What support do you need to accelerate student learning?” District leaders become resource providers and barrier removers rather than gatekeepers.
The most powerful accountability model I’ve implemented combined all three elements: OKRs (Objectives and Key Results). Borrowed from the business sector but adapted for educational contexts, this framework asks schools to set ambitious, measurable goals (Objectives) and identify specific, quantifiable benchmarks (Key Results) that indicate progress.
The beauty of OKRs lies in their balance. The district establishes organizational objectives, such as “All students will demonstrate grade-level proficiency in foundational skills”; however, individual schools determine their key results based on their current reality and improvement trajectory. Principals maintain autonomy in strategy while remaining accountable for outcomes. Progress is reviewed quarterly through collaborative conversations focused on problem-solving rather than blame.
When accountability honors both autonomy and achievement, something remarkable happens: leaders lean into challenges rather than away from them, innovation flourishes because calculated risks are supported, and results improve because people feel a sense of ownership over their work.
Think about your current accountability systems. Are they generating the resignation letters I received, or are they cultivating the kind of empowered leadership that transforms student lives?
Here’s your next step:
Audit one accountability process in your organization this week. Ask yourself: Does this clarify essential outcomes? Does it build capability? Does it use transparency to support growth? If you can’t answer yes to all three, you’ve found your starting point for meaningful change.
The students in your schools deserve leaders who feel empowered to serve them excellently. What will you do differently to make that possible?
#EducationalLeader,
Kim
“When students are led well, they learn well.”
References
- Doerr, J. (2018). Measure what matters: How Google, Bono, and the Gates Foundation rock the world with OKRs. Portfolio/Penguin.
- Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for professional development in education. Albert Shanker Institute.
- Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. Jossey-Bass.
- Sinek, S. (2014). Leaders eat last: Why some teams pull together and others don’t. Portfolio/Penguin.
- Tschannen-Moran, M. (2014). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
The views shared in the Educational Leadership Moment are solely those of Dr. Kim D. Moore and do not reflect the positions of her employer or any entity within the local, state, or federal government sector.
0 comments