The real debate is no longer about whether education systems require accountability, but about the form that accountability should take, writes Md Rakib Hasan
IN MANY educational systems today, well-meaning efforts to ensure teacher accountability have become narrowly preoccupied with measurable indicators — attendance, lesson delivery, syllabus coverage. While structure and discipline have their place, such emphasis on compliance risks diverting attention from the real objective: student learning. A teacher might adhere strictly to the timetable and cover every prescribed chapter, yet this does not guarantee that understanding or engagement has taken root in the classroom. The essence of education lies not in box-ticking, but in sparking curiosity, nurturing thought and rendering knowledge meaningful.
A compliance-first culture often fosters a kind of performative teaching in which the aim is less about ‘making a difference’ and more about ‘avoiding blame.’ True learning demands curiosity, connection and critical thinking, qualities that cannot be reduced to a timecard. The pertinent question is whether our schools are truly enabling students to thrive, or merely serving as systems that congratulate themselves for meeting procedural checklists. If the aim is genuine educational transformation, the priority must shift from surveillance to support, from control to curiosity, and from mechanical completion of tasks to measurable impact in learning outcomes.
Research reinforces these concerns. An international study involving more than 100,000 teachers in 40 countries found a significant correlation between intensive accountability regimes and heightened teacher stress. Another body of research shows that excessive compliance-oriented supervision diminishes teacher autonomy and creativity, eroding the quality of instruction. In contrast, evidence consistently points to collaborative and supportive supervisory practices as being far more effective in fostering professional growth and excellence in teaching. The conclusion is clear: punitive oversight does not elevate standards; it often undermines them.
This is not to suggest that monitoring should be discarded altogether. Accountability remains a cornerstone of effective education, but it must be intelligent, constructive and centred on the student. Effective leadership understands that accountability is not about catching teachers out, but about helping them to excel in what they do best. Encouragingly, some of the most progressive education systems have already embraced models that prioritise autonomy, reflection and student feedback as core measures of accountability.
Finland offers a notable example. There, teachers are granted considerable professional freedom in how they teach, but performance is assessed through student outcomes, collaborative peer review and professional development, rather than rigid surveillance. This shift in focus has been instrumental in sustaining Finland’s reputation for educational excellence.
Several approaches can underpin such a re-imagined accountability framework. One is the use of student portfolios, which make learning visible in ways that a lesson log or attendance sheet never can. By documenting how students think, improve and apply concepts, portfolios provide institutions with a direct measure of teaching impact. They also encourage differentiated learning by allowing students to showcase strengths in diverse formats, promoting both equity and inclusion.
Reflective teaching journals present another powerful tool. These allow teachers to critically examine their own methods, noting what succeeded, what fell short and how student engagement evolved over time. When used within a learning-oriented accountability framework, such reflections can form the basis of constructive conversations between colleagues or mentors, offering an avenue for continuous improvement rather than a bureaucratic hoop to be jumped through.
Peer observation, if implemented with trust, can also be transformative. When colleagues observe each other’s lessons not to judge but to learn, the process fosters shared responsibility and professional camaraderie. Structured observation protocols — focusing on elements such as questioning techniques, pacing or use of feedback — enable targeted reflection. Follow-up dialogues then allow teachers to identify strengths and refine approaches without the defensive posturing that formal inspections so often provoke.
Anonymous student feedback adds another dimension, giving teachers insight into how their methods are received and where engagement may falter. Anonymity encourages honesty, particularly in cultures where students are reluctant to criticise authority figures. Such feedback should, however, be filtered to ensure reliability — for instance, only students with a minimum attendance threshold should contribute, ensuring that evaluations reflect genuine classroom experience rather than peripheral impressions.
Finally, transparency in institutional expectations is essential. Teachers need clarity not only on procedural requirements, but also on shared educational goals. When expectations are explicit and consistent, teachers can align their methods with institutional priorities while retaining the freedom to innovate. This clarity reduces uncertainty and the corrosive anxiety that often accompanies vague or shifting accountability frameworks.
The real debate is no longer about whether education systems require accountability, but about the form that accountability should take. Frameworks grounded in trust, reflection and student-centred evaluation do not lower standards; they elevate them. Systems that measure presence over purpose or process over impact risk creating classrooms where compliance masquerades as achievement. If we wish to build learning environments that ignite curiosity and equip students for the future, we must treat teachers not as subjects of control, but as partners in progress. For when teachers are empowered to grow, students are empowered to learn — and that is the truest measure of educational success.
Ìý
Md Rakib Hasan is an IT professional currently serving as the Director of IT (Additional Charge) at Southeast University.
