Intelligent Accountability: Creating the conditions for teachers to thrive

by David Didau

Where there are power imbalances, we tell those above us only what we think they want to hear and those beneath us only what we think they need to know. Because communication is at best partial and at worst dishonest, not only does this erode trust but it also creates a gap between what we think is true and what is actually happening.

A more formative approach to school leadership builds in learning through error and acknowledges that although mistakes are inevitable, repeating the same mistakes is inexcusable.

Within a formative approach there are no shortcuts to expertise. Leaders understand the need to serve their apprenticeship on the back row of the staffroom and continue to make the time to listen to as many views as possible within the school. You may not always like what you hear, but these views represent the cognitive diversity of a school; these are the people that you need to win over. When school leadership is approached formatively and iteratively, school improvement aligns to represent the opinions of the majority and is less likely to feel imposed and resented.

Trust is built on knowledge. The more leaders know about what teachers should be teaching and what constitutes effective long-term learning in the subject they’re observing, the easier it is both for the teacher to trust that the leader is sufficiently knowledgeable to recognise what they’re doing and for the leader to trust that the teacher is teaching effectively.

While it may be true that the quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers, it’s almost impossible for the quality of teaching to exceed the quality of school leadership.

Trusting teachers is risky. If you trust them to be honest they may tell you things you don’t want to hear. If you trust them to be autonomous they may do things you don’t want them to do. If you allow teachers the space to be professionally sceptical they may come to conclusions that don’t align with yours. But not trusting teachers may be an even greater risk.

the two most important factors in making ourselves more trustworthy and creating a high trust environment are honesty and expertise. Without these two qualities in our schools, an insufficiency or deficit is built in, preventing us from acting with sufficient knowledge and realism and thereby undermining our decision-making as leaders.

Like all organisations, schools need specialists, but these specialists should only be trusted on matters pertaining to their expertise.

Evidence is the watermark of expertise.

Expertise includes both ‘knowing what’ and ‘knowing how’.

teachers have a responsibility to be experts in their subjects, to be as knowledgeable as possible about their students and to develop informed professional scepticism. We all have the right to be trusted – at least until we’re shown to have betrayed that trust – but rights are only meaningful when placed alongside corresponding responsibilities. Trust and trustworthiness may be mutually reinforcing but they come with obligations and duties.

First, all teachers agree that they need to improve their practice, not because they are not good enough, but because they can be even better. Second, teachers agree to focus on things that are likely to have benefits for their students, so no more time on Brain Gym, learning styles, lesson study, or neuroscience because it’s frankly self-indulgent to spend time on things that may or may not help students when there is solid evidence about what does help students.

Too many school systems have become blunt instruments used to bind rather than support teachers:

rewarding compliance, penalising professional judgement and independent thought and creating perverse incentives.

If we don’t have the sticks and carrots of accountability to incentivise teachers, then we’re in the terrifying position of simply trusting that they will do the right thing.

Is accountability creating perverse incentives? What do you want teachers to change? Be specific about exactly what you want them to do differently. To what extent might teachers’ behaviour be caused by systemic rather than individual failures? How can systems be improved? Incentives work best when they affect how we feel. Find out how teachers feel now and articulate clearly how you would like them to feel. What can you take away to ensure that teachers are not too exhausted to make the desired change? Consciously opt out of old initiatives and prioritise the need to reduce unnecessary workload. Which teachers are already doing the things you want others to do? Make sure you recognise teachers’ efforts and share examples of the practice you want to encourage. Teachers will be motivated to avoid being blamed for mistakes and to take credit for successes. What unexpected changes could occur? How will you prevent them from occurring?

What we accept becomes acceptable. If teachers are expected to behave in particular ways – spending hours marking books or differentiating lessons with engaging activities – then there will be normative pressures on new teachers to fit in.

the imposition of a careless extrinsic accountability system can cause overload, anxiety and avoidance.

What worked sufficiently well? What didn’t work sufficiently well? What could have worked even better? Why did this work here and not there?

By comparing the results of each these conditions, accountability is most likely to lead to positive behaviours and improved performance when: We know we will be accountable to an audience before we are judged or commit to a course of action. The audience’s views are unknown. We believe the audience is well informed and interested in accuracy.

When these conditions are met, people tend to do the right thing.99 This is intelligent accountability.

When we know we’ll have to explain or justify our actions, we are much more likely to reflect self-critically, consider multiple perspectives, anticipate objections made by ‘reasonable others’ and revise our beliefs in response to evidence.

When we decide we know better than classroom teachers how they ought to teach their classes, we inevitably end up doing something foolish and ignoring the collective knowledge of the organisation. Instead, we should always ask teachers to talk about the reasons for the decisions they’ve made, and then listen.

explanations are plausible then teachers should be trusted; if they don’t they may need additional support.

The biggest mistake we make when holding teachers (or anyone else) to account is telling them what ‘right’ looks like before the process begins.

We’re often at pains to say that this is the best way to mark books, teach lessons, manage behaviour or whatever else we want teachers to do. Now, let me show you how ... Then, when we go through a process of quality assurance, what we’re actually doing is checking whether the teacher has marked their books, taught their lessons or managed their classes in the way we have told them to

If all teachers were equally experienced, equally hard-working and equally effective then it would make sense to treat all teachers in exactly the same way. Obviously enough, all teachers are different. They are effective at different things. If we try to make all teachers do the same things we will, inevitably, reduce the effectiveness of very many.

Imagine a square, within which there is another, smaller, square shaded blue: the blue box. The blue box represents prescription and the larger white space within the square represents autonomy. How big is the blue box? What is in it? Why? A respectful accountability system engages teachers in a discussion about the blue box.

Early career teachers don’t yet know enough to make wise decisions and, regrettably, this continues to be true for too many teachers throughout their professional lives. This is not due to any deficit inherent to teachers themselves, but because they are systemically failed.

A novice doesn’t need to be introduced to a range of methods; they need to become proficient in one method. Then, having mastered this, they might have the bandwidth to experiment with other approaches.

When people are treated fairly they are supported according to their needs.

Mastery should earn autonomy.

If some colleagues need support, give it to them. If others merit freedom, they should have it. There will be times when it’s right and reasonable to remove freedoms and impose tighter constraints, but when all staff are treated identically everyone is demotivated.

Mastery is about getting better at something we feel is important and worthwhile.

Performance management is much more likely to result in teachers thriving if it is centred on asking teachers what they want to work on and then, if they have earned the autonomy to be trusted, holding them to account for working on their priorities.

Performance management should be ‘high challenge, low threat’: teachers are most likely to improve when they are excited by challenges, trusted to make sensible choices and held to account for doing what they have said they will do.

Be prepared: know the teachers you are responsible for as well as possible.

Negotiate teachers’ targets: if they have earned your trust, allow them freedom to choose how to develop; if they are still earning autonomy, insist on as few constraints and guidelines as is possible. Ask teacher...

Make sure targets can be achieved by teachers through their own efforts. Teachers should not be set targets relating to student outcomes because it is studen...

If teachers have not met their targets, ask them why. If they have made reasonable efforts but still fallen short, maybe they require more support or maybe the target was imp...

It’s no good telling them they’re outstanding and leaving it at that. Some who are considered outstanding stop improving just because no one is sure what to suggest. Others settle into self-satisfied complacency and overconfidence.

Dylan Wiliam points out that: it could well be that their students will benefit more by having their teachers become outstanding at things they are already good at, rather than worrying too much about weaknesses. The aim of professional development is not to make every teacher into a clone of every other teacher [back to the goal displacement effect of consistency] but rather to support each teacher in becoming the best teacher he or she can be.112

While it’s true that a well-planned lesson can contribute to good behaviour, it is most certainly not true that good planning can solve behaviour problems.

We learn most by observing others and then having an opportunity to ask questions and discuss assumptions. If we want to help struggling teachers improve, free them up to observe colleagues. Absolutely don’t expect them to do this in their limited non-contact time; senior leaders should cover lessons so that actual support is provided.

School leaders need to take responsibility for showing people how to do something rather than just telling them how to do something.