Content uploaded by Kampala International University IX
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kampala International University IX on Apr 11, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://www.eejournals.org/ Open Access
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited
Page | 57
Balancing Accountability and Autonomy in Education
Neema Amani U.
Faculty of Business and Management Kampala International University Uganda
ABSTRACT
The interplay between accountability and autonomy in education presents an ongoing challenge for
policymakers, educators, and stakeholders. While accountability mechanisms are crucial in ensuring
quality education, they often impose rigid constraints that may hinder teacher autonomy and innovation.
This paper examines the complexities of this relationship, examining historical, theoretical, and practical
dimensions of accountability and autonomy in education. It analyzes global case studies that illustrate
diverse approaches to balancing these two elements, emphasizing the impact on student outcomes and
institutional effectiveness. By exploring emerging trends and policy implications, this paper proposes
strategies to foster a balanced educational environment where accountability safeguards quality without
undermining professional autonomy.
Keywords
:
Education Policy, Accountability, Teacher Autonomy, Educational Outcomes, Policy
Reforms, Student Performance, School Governance.
INTRODUCTION
In the age of swift educational and technological advancements, the need to provoke thoughtful
discussion on how and in what ways accountability and autonomy intersect within educational
frameworks has never been greater. In many ways, these elements are placed in tension with each other
within the context of contemporary educational reforms, which has resulted in several complexities and
challenges for educators, students, and broader educational stakeholders alike. This paper seeks to
explore these complexities in greater detail, with an overarching focus to promote greater clarity and
understanding regarding how accountability and autonomy can be made to coexist in educational systems
constructively and in the best interests of students’ educational outcomes. This paper is not of the view
that these two concepts are mutually exclusive. On the contrary, it will be argued that simple frameworks
of cause and effect do not sufficiently account for the much more complex interrelations between how
educators engage with students and the contexts in which they do so. Both accountability and autonomy
must go hand in hand to ensure that effective educational outcomes are achieved; however, no existing
interpretation of this relationship currently understands this in a satisfactorily nuanced or complex way.
The paper will put forth several proposals, outlining a more advanced framework through which these
two key drivers of educational systems might better understand how to foster and develop educational
autonomy while simultaneously adhering to broader social and educational accountabilities. At the core of
this analysis will be an exploration of the role technology might have to play in the furtherance of the
educational objectives of both educators and students alike [1, 2].
The Concept of Accountability in Education
This remarkable and insightful volume brings together an extensive collection of well-handled scholarly
papers that thoroughly explore various dimensions of accountability in many diverse educational settings.
Through this comprehensive examination, a clear and compelling vision of the nuanced and multifaceted
nature of accountability emerges, allowing for a deeper understanding of its impact. Aided significantly by
a very broad and catholic bibliography on the topic, the knowledgeable authors delve into not only how
accountability can be effectively applied in a research mode to value educational effectiveness in various
contexts but also how it is practically played out in many different international educational settings.
EURASIAN EXPERIMENT JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
SOCIAL SCIENCES (EEJHSS) ISSN: 2992-4111
©EEJHSS Publications Volume 7 Issue 1 2025
https://www.eejournals.org/ Open Access
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited
Page | 58
They examine and clarify what passes as accountability in terms of those who are locally responsible for
managing and overseeing such educational contexts, thus enhancing the overall discourse surrounding
this critical issue [3, 4].
Defining Accountability
To effectively engage in discussions about accountability in education, it is essential first to define it
clearly. Over the past fifteen to twenty years, the terms related to accountability and autonomy have
become prevalent in public and professional discussions, yet consensus on their meanings remains elusive.
While accountability is fundamental, it is complex and multifaceted, raising questions about the
usefulness of related debates. Often described as the “great unexplored concept,” the understanding of
accountability is further muddied when viewed alongside concepts like equitability, efficiency,
effectiveness, and autonomy. It serves as both a necessary and potentially problematic aspect of
educational organization or practice. Definitions of accountability vary widely; for instance, they range
from formal definitions, which note the responsibility of educators to help students meet established
competence standards, to informal characterizations of duty. These only capture part of accountability,
namely the ethical, legal, and professional responsibilities of educators, neglecting the critical components
of objectives and assessment methods that define accountability's essence. Thus, accountability can be
broadly understood as a fusion of expectations regarding achievements in education, balanced with
assessment mechanisms. Acknowledging the various interpretations of accountability is crucial for
meaningful dialogue. Despite its ambiguous nature, the significance of accountability underpins this
study. Proper procedures in accountability can be subjective; there is no universally accepted method to
implement it. However, it plays a critical role in achieving broader educational objectives, enabling
educational systems to yield outcomes that, while not always the best, are at least consistent and effective.
Authenticating best practices and intentions requires a structured accountability scheme, especially when
public perception of educators and institutions is often distorted or misinformed, as seen in media
discussions that lack proper citations [5, 6].
Historical Context of Accountability
Accountability has long been a dominant ethos in the public services, generally, and in public education,
particularly. This conjunction of terms focuses attention on the notion of holding publicly-provided
services to account. Such an idea is generally couched in terms of making those services responsive to the
needs and demands of the ‘consumer’, of ‘improving’ the services so that the demands of ‘consumers’ can
be more effectively met, of justifying public expenditure, and of creating a more efficient and effective
system. However, the tension between a desire for improvement and a search for guaranteed
improvement, between a call for more coherence and coordination and the need to allow diverse providers
to operate, can make the relationship between accountability and educational practice uneasy. The
emergence of accountability in contemporary educational discourse can be seen as a response to changes
in the political economy. The set of ideas, practices, and policies that now comprise the accountability
movement need to be better understood and historicized if it is to be effectively critiqued and, were useful,
resisted. As such, and given the dominance of accountability in educational discourses, policies, and
practices, it is perhaps useful to examine the historical context of the idea and the movement. It is the
contention that the account of the historical emergence and development of such ideas (practices and
policies) will illustrate that it is not ‘innocent’ (in the sense of being derived from a simple and true body
of knowledge) and that it has been molded through a welter of social and political processes. Such an
understanding may both serve to enrich analyses of current accountability events and thus better inform
resistance to it and also serve to remind policymakers and other educational stakeholders of the undesired
outcomes of pursuing such a fervent (and particular) line [7, 2].
Current Trends in Educational Accountability
There has been a worldwide trend of increased emphasis on accountability in the various areas of public
policy. In the sphere of education, the issue of accountability has also been paid growing attention in
recent years, and this interest has been manifested in various ways in different countries. Questions such
as, ‘To whom should one be accountable?’ ‘For what should one be accountable?’ and ‘How should one be
accountable?’ are of great significance for all aspects of education, including early childhood education,
and are the focus of attention taking broad perspectives concerning the relationship between
accountability and autonomy in education are needed. As such, it has various aspects such as ‘equality and
equal opportunity,’ ‘efficiency and effectiveness,’ ‘improvement of the outcomes,’ ‘transparency and public
understanding,’ and ‘freedom and democracy. In this context, an aspect of the relationship between
https://www.eejournals.org/ Open Access
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited
Page | 59
accountability and educational quality, such as educational standards, is also addressed. Accountability
was emphasized to pursue the improvement of the outcomes, and huge interests were shown to set and
maintain the educational standards. This direction to accountability, namely ‘achievement-oriented
accountability,’ may have insightful implications for the discussion on this issue. It would be claimed,
however, that there lurk certain risks in association with a blind dependency upon the statistical outcomes
of the data such as the narrowing down of educational goals, the misleading of the process-oriented
education and its autonomy, and postcode determinism. Such risks would result, in turn, in dividing the
early childhood education services between the good one and the bad one, or the successful one and the
failed one, and thereby, the interests of children and parents with educational disadvantages may not be
appropriately met. There would also be a criticism that statistical outcomes of the data would be hardly
relevant to the early childhood education that pursues the diverse and multi-dimensional development of
children [8, 9].
Understanding Autonomy in Educational Settings
The term ‘autonomy’ is often taken to be one of the ‘founding myths’ of modernity: the story of how
through its recognition in the eighteenth century, something about the individual is disclosed for the first
time is considered, historically, as education developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the
emphasis was not on the individual child, or even on the adult, but on the social order. Paternal and
ecclesiastical authorities developed systems with a notion of accountability to a higher power, rather than
regarding a body with a duty of care as self-contained. Nevertheless, whilst autonomy is a relatively
recent and constantly shifting concept within the English-speaking world, its component elements of
‘autonomie’, ‘Selbstkonrolle’, and ‘autonomia’ enjoy semantic and discursive histories in continental
Europe tracing back to Aquinas, Luther, and Kant. Over time, the term autonomy, with its resonances of
freedom, privacy, and inviolability, has been promulgated and contested in a range of interrelated and
often contradictory ways by a variety of social agents in numerous socio-political and economic spheres.
Given its varied and often opposing interpretation, Hofmann’s utilitarian evaluation, specifically
regarding autonomy as a notion of ‘theoretical freedom’, will be taken here as a starting point in seeking
to understand the relevance of autonomy in the field of education. This interpretation can be described as
the facility of a learner or educator in educational settings to make informed decisions within the
constraints of their intellectual and moral capabilities. As such, it is suggested that this deliberative
freedom is a crucial component of educators and institutions being able to ‘act for themselves’. Further, it
is contended that as a constituent building block of ‘freedom in the university’, autonomy was implicitly
invested with a broader and deeper intelligence. This intelligence involves developing educationally
informed and context-sensitive arguments and strategies in both preserving and critiquing did weeks
Feldian traditions. Moreover, it is the capacity to conceive of and undertake mature thought experiments
on questions of curricular, pedagogical, and institutional policy. It is autonomy in this comprehensive
sense that is represented in the following argument [10, 11].
The Tension Between Accountability and Autonomy
The lifelong goal of education is generally to produce competent individuals who can function well in
society and secure others in future generations who can do the same. However, what sort of education is
most fit or proper is heavily contested. On one side of this debate are those who see top-down
accountability systems, both involving individual educators and educational enterprises, as the best way
to incentivize teachers and schools to perform their functions effectively. Others argue that elaborate
systems of accountability have a negative effect; they tend to work against the formation of good
educators who are capable of increased self-direction and self-control. If professionalism means nothing
else, it surely means that this very freedom and autonomy that high-stakes accountability regimes can
erode: the freedom to act and take responsibility for these actions under a normativity which is to some
extent of the professional's own making and control or, at the very least, their evaluation and approval.
The serious and systematic pursuit of this issue is, therefore, pressing. This article thus examines some of
how coercion and autonomy come together in the context of educational practice. Both pre-tertiary and
tertiary-level education will be considered. As is perhaps especially apparent in educational domains,
when subject to coercive interventions, it is not merely that human beings may confront one another with
heightened reluctance. Achieving certain goods and ends can often require the exercise of facultative
judgement and individual discretion, and hence, in these contexts, the imposition of unwarranted outside
constraint or compulsion may erode or conceal the possession of these qualities. Likewise, the conditions
for fostering these virtuously are - as was long ago noticed - certain kinds of behavioural, judgemental, or,
https://www.eejournals.org/ Open Access
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited
Page | 60
to use a slightly anachronistic term, ‘psychometric’ anonymity. For all these reasons, one often cannot
have that which is overwhelmingly coerced, compelled, or mandated. Against the view that high-stakes
accountability systems tend to degrade professional formation in teachers and wrench the intuitive sense
of discursive practices and professional virtues, it will be objected that accountability systems - at least
some possible systems, administered in some ways - are crucial to it [12, 13].
Case Studies
1) The international case studies illuminate some of the strategies used by policymakers to reconcile or
balance accountability and school autonomy. However, their effectiveness is always contextual and is
linked to the social and cultural environment with which the reforms are traded. To understand more
clearly the effect of these forces on accountability, this paper includes a collection of case studies from
different countries. All have characteristics in common, but there are remarkable differences in the way
institutions have attempted to address the competing demands of autonomy and accountability. Two
cases come from a European country, one from an Anglophone country, and one from an East Asian
system [14].
2) Stakeholders in rural Bermuda are concerned about the impact of an outcomes-based accountability
model on the already underperforming education system. Stakeholders include educators (teachers,
principals), politicians, parents, and more general members of the public (some of the questions relate to
an individual’s status as a parent, or educator, or both, since public opinion is not monolithic). An
outcomes-based approach is defined as one where the focus has shifted to measuring the extent to which
educational success is consistent with expectations regarding the standards. Discussions about
accountability, then, are discussions about how to ‘raise standards’ without adequately considering what
is required to ‘make the provision equal’ [15].
3) The principal’s role is to ensure teachers provide rigorous instruction aligned with New Standards,
which is the district’s Common Core-linked curriculum and assessment system. To promote rigorous
instruction, principals are expected to provide weekly ideas to their teachers, observe instruction weekly
to provide teachers with feedback and support, and collaborate with teachers to create assessment-aligned
tasks. However, the low-performing schools for which the turnaround data are intended are
predominately composed of minority and low-SES students. These schools have understaffed
administrative teams and have teacher turnover rates near 30%. Further, a recent study by the district on
principal retention and compensation found profound issues with recruitment in high-needs schools. Few
aspiring principals, particularly racial minorities, desire to work in a district where salary is not
competitive [16].
Strategies For Balancing Accountability and Autonomy
Educators are being held increasingly accountable for their students’ learning, and schools and systems
are subject to ever-increasing levels of external scrutiny. In the current high-stakes climate, there is
widespread recognition of the need for mechanisms that can assure stakeholders that educators and
institutions are meeting their responsibilities. However, the downside of this is that a focus on measurable
outcomes and the regulation surrounding meeting these outcomes is perceived to be damaging to teacher
autonomy and to work. Teacher autonomy is regarded as a ‘good thing,’ intrinsically worthwhile, and
generally beneficial to teacher practice and student outcomes. The framing of accountability
arrangements can both support and threaten teacher autonomy. Autonomy supportive accountability
arrangements are not only likely to be more positively mediated, but their success in enhancing teacher
practice and student learning becomes all the more important in light of the threats to teacher autonomy
posed by the process. Hence, there is an increasing need to achieve a balance between accountability and
autonomy, seeing these potentially conflicting elements as synergistic rather than counteractive. On the
one hand, accountability is seen as essential, fostering motivation and ensuring that there is a mechanism
in place to generate quality work, be it effective policy, practice, reporting, or research. On the other,
autonomy is regarded as the mechanism by which this quality work is best facilitated, enabling an
environment that encourages collaboration, creates buy-in and ownership, and isn’t constrained by
predetermined boundaries or directives. In turn, the freedom that is the key to innovation,
experimentation, and creativity also comes at a risk that provisional or exploratory avenues are taken,
and initial quantifiable outcomes may not always be evident [17, 18].
Impact on Student Outcomes
The concepts of accountability and autonomy in diverse educational environments are complex and pose
ongoing challenges to balance. This paper focuses on student outcomes and its related issue areas,
https://www.eejournals.org/ Open Access
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited
Page | 61
specifically examining the impact of accountability and autonomy on student engagement, achievement,
overall well-being, and the nuanced implications of these two educational measures for educational equity
and effectiveness. As well as looking at these aspects of student outcomes, taking into account social
identity, such as gender, schooling type, and teacher gender. Taking these into account, the findings
indicate that middle-class girls in the high tracked school setting reported the most positive outcomes,
falling engagement in every other group. The findings have imperative policy and practice implications,
emphasizing the necessity to balance accountability and autonomy in schools and prevent additional
educational disadvantages from being imposed on marginalized students. Accountability is a debatable
issue in educational policy and practice due to its potential influence on unintended outcomes. Though the
relationship between accountability and achievement is exemplified in the case studies, high-stakes testing
and increased school choice have led to growing concern about teaching to the test, stressed students, and
narrowed curricula. The plethora of checklists, monitoring visits, audits, and inspecting bodies satisfying
accountability to these governments, high achieving, middle-class children in the selective private school
sector are more likely to enter higher education, exacerbating educational disparities. Teachers in
“failing” schools are monitored and constantly pressured to improve test scores, affecting instructor job
satisfaction, leading to lower achievement, thus diverting vital resources and efforts away from
disadvantaged areas. The demand for schooling is positioning schools under the pressure of behaving as
‘purchase units.’ Schools, therefore, need to balance accountability and high student performance with
pedagogical autonomy to provide the most desirable learning experiences for all individuals in an
increasingly diverse student population. Concern is also based on autonomy; schools and teachers no
longer have curriculum autonomy, hence the ways they meet accountability requirements, in addition to
wider social and political changes in education such as the rise of New Public Management, increased
bureaucracy, heightened government intervention and scrutiny, tests, and targets [19, 20].
Policy Recommendations
A growing body of research emphasizes the benefits of balancing accountability and autonomy in
education for students, educators, and school systems. Policymakers must establish an accountability
framework that allows flexibility and support for teachers while ensuring valid standards for
accountability. This paper proposes policy recommendations to enhance the balance between
accountability and autonomy, affirming teacher professionalism and voice. Policymakers should involve
educators and stakeholders, particularly parents, in the assurance process. Teachers possess essential
knowledge about how assurance frameworks function in practice. Research shows that teachers can adapt
guidelines based on their judgment, but this ability is often restricted by rigid assurance frameworks. The
validity of professional conduct and teacher discretion should be recognized in accountability systems. In
many state verification systems, assessments of professional conduct receive less prior notice and are
subject to moderate control, leading to differences in the scope of professional conduct between states and
non-states. Current research finds that teachers collaborate to circumvent instructional accountability,
yet little is known about their decision-making processes. Future work should explore the interplay of
autonomy-discipline mixes and discretion frameworks. Moreover, the impacts of conformities, outcomes-
based control, and high involvement remain understudied. Political and academic factors must align more
effectively with professional practices. Additionally, quantitative research should assess the costs of
accountability agencies perceived by school leaders, as these may consume resources and limit local
development of learning strategies. These insights will help policymakers and school leaders facilitate
educational innovation in regulated environments. While promoting data-driven decision-making, it is
crucial not to impose excessive outcome-based controls, which could stifle a learning-oriented system.
Teachers require skills and expertise through accountability programs that do not overemphasize
conformity and standardized outcomes. The current teacher accountability model should integrate
elements of autonomy and judgment-based control. Ultimately, the relationship between conformity,
uniformity, outcomes-based control, and policy-making underscores the necessity for cohesive policies
across educational governance levels. Complex accountability systems warrant durable changes, and
proposals for simplifying education must be reinforced because complexity incurs real costs. School
leaders face challenging decisions influenced by various policies, which may lead to noncompliance if
capacities are lacking. To improve policy outcomes, educational policies should evolve into a symbiotic
system of complexity, correlating policy diffusion with school autonomy and adapting academic literature
on policy enactment and teacher risk-taking [21, 22].
https://www.eejournals.org/ Open Access
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited
Page | 62
Future Directions in Education
The landscape of education is rapidly evolving. In recent years, there has been a movement to address the
over-emphasis on standardized tests through new accountability frameworks. As this shift evolves, a new
dialogue is needed that adopts a systemic view, understanding accountability and autonomy as
interrelated concepts. This dialogue intends to inspire future research, support systemic perspectives in
educational practice, and promote policy recommendations. In this light, a dialogue is offered that
acknowledges this relationship and seeks to balance accountability with the autonomy needed to support
innovative education. Relinquishing control to individual schools and educators, the public education
system has been restructured by broader control and policies rooted in outcomes-based accountability.
This has resulted in the shaping of classroom practices from a top-down, examination-driven approach.
Despite high demands for autonomy and flexibility from educational stakeholders, teachers face
increasing pressure for accountability. As a result, they may view accountability and autonomy as
conflicting demands. Emerging trends in education, such as personalized learning and competency-based
education, make transparent the integral link between autonomy and accountability. The former
necessitates increased flexibility and, hence, a shift in accountability focus on outcomes rather than
prescriptive regulations. Supporting innovative education requires innovative forms of accountability that
balance control with autonomy, appraisal with support, and punitive measures with partnership.
Ultimately, this is a dialogue that fosters partnerships between individual schools and evaluators to
understand context and prioritize professional development. Addressing these demands in innovative
education requires novel partnership approaches to ensure accountability supports practice improvement
while allowing for flexibility and nurturing high-quality teaching [23, 24].
CONCLUSION
The balance between accountability and autonomy in education is essential for fostering an effective
learning environment. Excessive accountability measures can constrain educators’ ability to innovate,
while unchecked autonomy may lead to inconsistencies in educational quality. A nuanced approach that
integrates structured accountability with flexible autonomy is necessary to enhance student engagement,
teacher satisfaction, and overall educational effectiveness. Policymakers must recognize the need for
adaptable frameworks that empower educators while maintaining high standards. By prioritizing
collaboration among stakeholders and ensuring accountability systems are supportive rather than
restrictive, education systems can cultivate both equity and excellence in learning.
REFERENCES
1. Thompson G, Mockler N, Hogan A. Making work private: Autonomy, intensification and
accountability. European Educational Research Journal. 2022 Jan;21(1):83-104. sagepub.com
2. Kallio TJ, Kallio KM, Huusko M, Pyykkö R, Kivistö J. Balancing between accountability and
autonomy: the impact and relevance of public steering mechanisms within higher education.
Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management. 2022 Dec 19;34(6):46-68.
emerald.com
3. Chounta IA, Bardone E, Raudsep A, Pedaste M. Exploring teachers’ perceptions of artificial
intelligence as a tool to support their practice in Estonian K-12 education. International journal
of artificial intelligence in education. 2022 Sep;32(3):725-55. springer.com
4. Högberg B, Lindgren J. Outcome-based accountability regimes in OECD countries: a global
policy model?. Comparative Education. 2021 Jul 3;57(3):301-21.
5. Limongi R. The use of artificial intelligence in scientific research with integrity and ethics.
Future Studies Research Journal: Trends and Strategies. 2024 Apr 15;16(1):e845-.
revistafuture.org
6. Abrahams TO, Farayola OA, Kaggwa S, Uwaoma PU, Hassan AO, Dawodu SO. Cybersecurity
awareness and education programs: a review of employee engagement and accountability.
Computer Science & IT Research Journal. 2024;5(1):100-19. academia.edu
7. Long SJ, Hawkins J, Murphy S, Moore G. School health and wellbeing and national education
system reform: A qualitative study. British Educational Research Journal. 2023 Aug;49(4):674-
92. wiley.com
8. Parcerisa L, Verger A, Browes N. Teacher Autonomy in the Age of Performance-Based
Accountability: A Review Based on Teaching Profession Regulatory Models (2017-2020)..
Education Policy Analysis Archives. 2022. ed.gov
https://www.eejournals.org/ Open Access
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited
Page | 63
9. Devlin M, Samarawickrema G. A commentary on the criteria of effective teaching in post-
COVID higher education. Higher Education Research & Development. 2022 Jan 2;41(1):21-32.
[HTML]
10. Kimura Y. L2 teacher motivation/autonomy as complex systems: Across the boundaries of L2
classrooms in East Asia. InLanguage teacher motivation, autonomy and development in East
Asia 2022 May 17 (pp. 111-133). Cham: Springer International Publishing. researchgate.net
11. Narayanan M, Shields AL, Delhagen TJ. Autonomy in the spaces: Teacher autonomy, scripted
lessons, and the changing role of teachers. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 2024 Jan 2;56(1):17-34.
tandfonline.com
12. DeMatthews DE, Serafini A. Do good principals do bad things? Examining bounds of ethical
behavior in the context of high-stakes accountability. Leadership and Policy in Schools. 2021 Jul
3;20(3):335-54.
13. Matete RE. Teaching profession and educational accountability in Tanzania. Heliyon. 2021 Jul
1;7(7).
14. Joshi A. What makes “difficult” settings difficult? Contextual challenges for accountability.
Development Policy Review. 2023 Mar;41:e12681.
15. Atkins L, Misselke L, Hart J, Lambeth S, Barker L. A Curriculum for Social Justice: Promoting
success for low-attaining youth. Springer Nature; 2023 Nov 26.
16. Rogers LK. Is role change enough? District organizational supports for principal supervision.
Educational Administration Quarterly. 2022 Oct;58(4):527-60.
17. Moe NB, Šmite D, Paasivaara M, Lassenius C. Finding the sweet spot for organizational control
and team autonomy in large-scale agile software development. Empirical Software Engineering.
2021 Sep;26(5):101. springer.com
18. Widana IW, Sumandya IW, Citrawan IW, Widana IN, Ibarra FP, Quicho RF, Delos Santos MR,
Velasquez-Fajanela JV, Mukminin A. The effect of teacher’s responsibility and understanding of
the local wisdom concept on teacher’s autonomy in developing evaluation of learning based on
local wisdom in special needs school. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice. 2023 Jul
3;23(10):152-67. researchgate.net
19. Hadjar A, Scharf J, Hascher T. Who aspires to higher education? Axes of inequality, values of
education and higher education aspirations in secondary schools in Luxembourg and the Swiss
Canton of Bern. European Journal of Education. 2021 Mar;56(1):9-26.
20. van de Werfhorst HG. Sorting or mixing? Multi‐track and single‐track schools and social
inequalities in a differentiated educational system. British Educational Research Journal. 2021
Oct;47(5):1209-36.
21. Nadeem M. Distributed leadership in educational contexts: A catalyst for school improvement.
Social Sciences & Humanities Open. 2024 Jan 1;9:100835.
22. Ayinla BS, Amoo OO, Atadoga A, Abrahams TO, Osasona F, Farayola OA. Ethical AI in
practice: Balancing technological advancements with human values. International Journal of
Science and Research Archive. 2024 Feb;11(1):1311-26. researchgate.net
23. Hashim AK, Torres C, Kumar JM. Is more autonomy better? How school actors perceive school
autonomy and effectiveness in context. Journal of Educational change. 2023 Jun;24(2):183-212.
24. Stacey M, McGrath-Champ S, Wilson R. Teacher attributions of workload increase in public
sector schools: Reflections on change and policy development. Journal of Educational Change.
2023 Nov;24(4):971-93.
CITE AS: Neema Amani U. (2025). Balancing Accountability and
Autonomy in Education. EURASIAN EXPERIMENT JOURNAL OF
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES, 7(1):57-63
