The Impact of Personal Variables of UNRWA School Principals on the Estimated Degree of Intelligent Accountability Practice

Mohammed O. Alagha^*, Heba W. Aldahouk

Dept. of Foundations of Education, College of Education, Islamic University of Gaza, Gaza, Palestine

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the effect of gender, educational qualification, and years of service of school principals on their estimation of Intelligent Accountability practices. The study sample consisted of (236) principals, (119 Male, 117 Female). The authors used a questionnaire which consisted of (57) items distributed on six domains: Mutual trust, Responsibility and Participation, Quality of education, Comprehensive assessment and diversity of Performance Indicators, Effective Feedback ,and Motivation and Enthusiasm. The study findings showed that: There were no statistically significant differences at the level (α ≤ 0.05) between the mean estimates of UNRWA School Principals in Gaza Governorate to practice degree of intelligent accountability attributed to variable of Gender (Male, Female), and to variable of educational qualification (Bachelor, Postgraduate). Meanwhile, there were statistically significant differences attributed to variable of years of service (less than 5 years, from 5-10 years, more than 10 years) in two areas (Effective Feedback, Motivation and Enthusiasm) and in the total degree in favor of less than 5 years.

Keywords

Personal Variables, Intelligent Accountability, UNRWA, School Principals

Received: May 3, 2015
Accepted: May 30, 2015
Published online: July 9, 2015

@ 2015 The Authors. Published by American Institute of Science. This Open Access article is under the CC BY-NC license. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

1. Introduction

Any improvement process should start first with a review and evaluation process of the current practices. It also requires identifying the impact of the early stages in the planning process, where the planning process is based on clear and consistent standards of accountability. Thus accountability is a step forward in thinking and planning to work, in order to ensure the continuous improvement and the finest educational quality.

Recently, the educational quality has become a key requirement in The United Nations Relief and Work Agency (UNRWA) schools. in order to meet this goal it has to provide constantly evolving educational service; for the preparation of Palestinian refugees children to compete in the labour markets, and as a commitment to its educational responsibilities towards them, it provides educational services in the light of the best available resources, which requires UNRWA to improve the quality of educational services (Tarkhan, 2009: 6).

Therefore Accountability establishes the goals which the public can understand and believe in; it provides feedback to the public so they can see the benefits of their investment; and because it causes the system to address its weaknesses, it creates continuous improvement which encourages the public to keep faith (Barber, 2004: 10-12(.

So it has become necessary to apply the concept of accountability at all educational levels, first from school and its principals, teachers, and stakeholders, and finally to the Ministry of Education, its Director and staff; so that it accesses the major objectives of accountability (Battah, 2006: 27).

Accountability in any system must be accompanied with assessment which works to determine what could be made for success and progress, it may be external or internal. The internal accountability or self-accountability promotes personal characteristics, and creative thinking; to improve the teaching activities practiced by the teacher or educator, and thus improve the educational inputs, processes and outputs (Ayesh, 2009: 193).

Thereby, intelligent accountability uses multiple forms of evidence to analyse performance and develop appropriate improvement strategies based on the evidence of what works. The primary focus in this regard must be to improve instruction and provide teachers with the assessment data and feedback that enables them to design and implement teaching strategies matched to the specific needs of each and every learner in their class (CEOM, 2009: 3).

Intelligent accountability achieves a ‘dynamic balance’ between meeting the need for accountability and increasing educational quality, and then explain how principals can use the standards and performance data to make appropriate decisions; to reach the desired goals of learning (Slater, 2013: 29).

2. Literature Review

Intelligent accountability in essence involves building cumulative capacity and responsibility that is both internally held and externally reinforced. So Accountability is needed in order to reassure the public that the system is in good hands and progressing well; it is also needed to help implementers know how well they are doing while providing the feedback and help to do even better.

Here Accountability means that someone in charge is taking responsibility for a particular outcome or result (Dealy, 2007: 21).

Also, the concept of accountability has been reported in the literature in many meanings such as: responsibility, or the obligation to interpret the tasks assigned to the individual, and educational accountability which means that schools are held accountable for the educational findings which is "student learning" (Al-Emari, 2011: 8(.

Accountability also means "individual responsibility for achieving specific outcomes according to specific standards and regulations, and in the case of any defect in any of these items, it has to answer the expected question (Why did it happen?) (Okhuarashidh, 2006: 36(.

As well, accountability is based on performance evaluation process at all levels, starting with the student and teacher, the school, the local department of education and ends with the educational system, in order to reform the system, also it is an essential mechanism for educational change, and is concerned with its all aspects (Al-Emari, 2004: 3(.

In the other hand, the purpose of accountability is to improve, modify or develop performance; accountability also includes specific criteria to follow-up workers' behaviour, in order to improve the educational system components: inputs, processes, and outputs (Ayesh, 2009: 18).

While some researchers like Lashway showed that traditional accountability takes care of outputs, others showed that negative accountability force workers to follow the rules of the system by making the punishment always in their minds, in the other hand the positive accountability promotes the behaviour of workers by motivation, if coordinated with the organization's rules (Battah, 2006: 23).

The idea of ‘intelligent accountability’ came to the attention of educators when O'nora O’Neill (2002) Reith Lectures on ‘A Question of Trust’ explored the negative effects of the accountability culture. O’Neill (2002) argued that: The new accountability is widely experienced not just as changing... but distorting the proper aims of professional practice and indeed as damaging professional pride and integrity. She suggested that if we want greater accountability without damaging professional performance we need Intelligent Accountability, and this requires "more attention to good governance and fewer fantasies about total control". (Cowie et al, 2007: 30-31).

Intelligent accountability is defined as "supportive method for teachers and educators to build trust, motivate them to carry out their responsibilities and encourage them to professionalism, also provide them with feedback for the common understanding and enthusiasm, and the trend towards teamwork" (Al-Ameer and Al-Awamleh, 2011: 62.63(.

In addition to that, intelligent accountability incorporates the notion that people respond better with incentives, meaning they avoid risks, and are more prepared when they have access to information about how their behaviour is compared to other (Lopez, 2010: 4(.

Where Intelligent Accountability is a modern principle in administrative transactions, based on smart diplomatic confrontation to notice mistakes committed by others without tension and rejection, so the school principal who practice Intelligent Accountability observes low-performance and gives feedback in a way that makes the teacher acknowledge the errors, and not to repeat such mistakes according to professional and moral obligation, and administrative accountability, which could harm those who insist on committing intentional or unintentional errors (Ayesh, 2009: 35-36(.

So intelligent accountability is focusing on growth, and is related to common core academic standards and educational and social quality standards (Vanderploeg, 2013: 3(.

Improving the quality of teaching and learning throughout the system is done by building capacity and providing flexibility at the front line, backed by an intelligent accountability framework and by targeted intervention to deal with underperformance (SHA, 2003: 8).

An intelligent accountability that respects professionals in schools is achievable, If inspections mutate in the form proposed then the organization must take responsibility for its reputation and the reality of what inspections impose on schools; it must ensure the development of a proper professional dialogue and support for training and development. And it must have no lesser ambition than to improve the inspection experience for staff in schools, and ultimately contribute to a better education for all young people. Also, school inspection is not the answer to school quality, But while it continues, it's better to positively transform the inspection experience to support improvement across the education system. (Bousted, 2012: 9,10(.

So intelligent accountability system should ensure that the accountability constraints are unlocked and that creativity is not stifled, and in order to effect improvement and ensure consistency there needs to be an all-encompassing self-evaluation and improvement planning tool that influences the ethos and culture of the organization (Hodgson, 2011: 18(.

In doing an intelligent accountability job well, an elected board maintains a focus on progress rather than control. Effective boards establish mechanisms for gathering and reviewing appropriate evidence to determine how the system is doing in implementing its vision, strategic plan and policies. Boards that make most progress take a non-punitive, transparent approach to accountability. They expect progress, provide support, seek open explanations about results and insist on clear next steps in relation to results being obtained (Fullan & Leithwood, 2010: 6).

Besides that Intelligent Accountability is based on meditation and reflective thinking, and asking questions skilfully in order to improve the feedback and performance development in a participative collective way (Mustafa, 2007: 16(.

By using intelligent accountability a practice of reciprocal accountability has been created in education system management where schools are increasingly accountable for learning outcomes and education authorities are held accountable to schools for making expected outcomes possible (Salhberg, 2007: 155).

Recently, the interest of education has increased in many countries, where the quality of education is an important indicator for the progress of these countries, so they have pursued different ways to improve the level of services provided in education, and use different ways of intelligent accountability to improve the educational process outputs and ensure the quality of education.

In Palestine it also concerned the UNRWA to meet the requirements of accountability in its schools, to ensure effective management accountability, so it is imperative for both parties to play their role properly to achieve this effective accountability (Tarkhan, 2006: 11(.

Toomy (1999) cited these conditions as:

•  Accountability requires discipline for both ends of accountability (Principal and teacher), this requires accountability to be away from the tension and anger and require honesty.

•  Accountability require courage for acceptance of accountability, commitment and courage of the assets of the confrontation by the two parties.

•  Accountability requires mentally effort, because it is not a random process, but it is planned, and intentional and known, and it requires review of the performance, and continuous improvement of the results.

•  Accountability takes commitment, that without commitment to fairness and integrity, we will never be accountable. (http://www.mtoomey.com/selfexpression.html)

This bottom-up approach to institutional organization is also reflected in Finland’s attempt to construct a system of intelligent accountability, an accountability framework. Finland’s move toward de-centralization and greater school autonomy has led to a sharing of accountability pressures between national leadership and local schools. The high degree of autonomy given to local districts and schools carries with it a direct accountability to the local community to ensure academic success (Ellison, 2009: 40).

The authors of this study had accessed some of the previous studies related to this study, they are as the following:-

Salama (2013): This study aimed to identify the role of accountability in improving the teachers' performance at UNRWA schools in Gaza from the school principals' perspectives. The researcher used the qualitative analytical approach, and he designed two tools: first, a questionnaire directed to the sample of the study; second, an interview. The study population consisted of (245) female and male school principals. The study sample included (205) female and male principals. The study findings showed that the total degree of the role of accountability in improving the performance of teachers from the UNRWA school principals' perspectives was of HIGH degree. And the study results revealed that there were no statistically significant differences among the means of estimating the role of accountability in improving the teachers' performance at UNRWA schools in Gaza attributed to the gender variable in two domains: planning and classroom management domains. Furthermore, there were statistically significant differences of the means of school principals' estimating favouring females in two domains: (assessment and career discipline domains). Moreover, the results showed that there were no statistically significant differences among the means of estimating the role of accountability in improving the teachers' performance at UNRWA schools in Gaza attributed to the educational qualification variable (BA - higher studies). In addition, there were statistically significant differences among the means of estimating the role of accountability in improving the teachers' performance at UNRWA schools in Gaza attributed the years of service variable (less than five years- from 5 to less than 10 years – 10 years and more) favouring from 5 to less than 10 years. Besides, there were no statistically significant  differences among the means of estimating the role of accountability in improving the teachers' performance at UNRWA schools in Gaza attributed to school type.

Žalec (2013): The main topics of the article are two phenomena that play an important role in (modern) higher education: accountability and trust. The author claims that we should not carry out just any accountability but rather only intelligent accountability. The aim of this paper is to contribute to the knowledge about intelligent accountability. In this framework the author wants to illuminate the key importance of trust for cultivation of intelligent accountability, the "dialectic" between trust and accountability and the importance of the proper understanding of the university. He argues that trust in teachers and faith in educational institutions is a necessary condition for their proper functioning. This faith demands that we comprehend (educational) institutions as paradigms. The author concludes that the implementation of non-intelligent accountability in education is an important factor of developing of the economist model of education which however, is incompatible with the personalized vision of education and society in general. Hence, we should refute its implementation.

Ellison (2012): The task of this article is to unpack the concept of accountability in order to clarify and critique the logic of this educational and political concept. To accomplish this task, the researcher employed a synthetic method of analysis that will, first, situate accountability within the larger framework of standards-based education reforms of which it is an integral element. From there, the second step is to examine the research literature in order to interrogate standards-based policy reforms at each point in its logical chain so as to unpack the unquestioned assumptions and problematic inherent to the concept of accountability that are often obscured by contemporary educational discourse. The results of this study suggest that critics of  accountability policies are well justified in their concerns.

Wyatt-Smith & Klenowski (2012): This paper focuses on standards-driven assessment reform and is based on research findings from a four-year, large-scale, federally funded Australian Research Council Linkage project. The authors propose that moderation, using explicitly defined standards, provides opportunities for teachers to develop their assessment capability and to carry forward their professional responsibility for intelligent accountability. In 21st century assessment it is also proposed that teachers and students undertake assessment as a shared enterprise involving increased student participation in assessment so that their reliance on the teacher as the primary source of evaluative feedback is systematically reduced over time. A qualitative methodological approach was adopted to analyse the corpus of data collected over the four years. The findings are presented as they relate to the Australian Curriculum and Achievement Standards and through a series of questions with direct application to ensuring dependable teacher judgment, standards and moderation. The paper concludes with recommendations for achieving dependable and sustainable assessment cultures that attend to ‘system’ and ‘site’ validity.

Al-Ameer & Al-Awamleh (2011): This study aimed at identifying the degree of applying the standards of quality assurance in Jordanian schools from the educational supervisors' point of view. The study sample consisted of (200) supervisors, (139) males and (61) females, from the different directorates of Education. in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. A questionnaire was designed which consisted of eight sections: students' affairs, teaching and learning, curriculum and human resources, leadership and planning, local society and physical resources. The study results showed that the curriculum field got the highest degree whereas the other fields were very low. Results also showed that there were no significant differences in the study variables which are gender, experience and academic level.

Hodgson (2011): This research sets out to examine and analyse, from a senior leadership perspective, the particular challenges, complexities and processes required to secure improvement in all-through academies within a climate of accountability. The key premise of this research is that strong self-evaluation strategies combined with external evaluation promote further improvements in performance. Accountability can often be seen as a dirty word, but it does not need to be a constraint on schools. Through a literature review and interviews with senior leaders at three all-through academies, a conceptual model was developed in one of the academies (the researcher’s own school) and analysed in respect of each type of accountability against the specific complexities and challenges posed by the all-through nature of the academies studied. As similar cyclical processes were also described in the other all-through academies studied, this suggests the need for further research to explore the potential benefits of such a model for a wider range of all-through academies.

Al-Hassan (2010): This study aimed to identify the degrees of accountability and educational administrative efficiency, and the relationship between them for the secondary government school principals of the West Bank from the viewpoint of workers in the Education departments, the researcher has prepared two questionnaires as tools for the study, the first for effectiveness, and other for accountability which was consisted of (35) items distributed on the following areas (classroom discipline, work and Achievement, Professional ethics, human relations, social relations), The study sample was (245) employees. The results showed that the study sample degree of estimates for educational administrative accountability in government secondary schools were high in general, and that there is no statistically significant differences attributed to the variables (sex, educational qualification, administrative experience, the site of the Directorate of Education, Job Title).

Abu Hashish (2010): The study aimed to detect the accountability degree of practice for principals towards the teachers of the secondary schools in Gaza governorate. The researcher used a descriptive analytical approach, and prepared a questionnaire as a tool for gathering information. The study sample included (212) teachers working in western Gaza Directorate. The most significant results of the study were that the accountability degree of practice for principals towards the teachers of the secondary schools in Gaza governorate from the teachers’ point of view was high in the administrative and technical domains. And the technical domain came in the first place. There were no differences in the teachers’ responses regarding the accountability degree of practice by the principals of the secondary schools at the Gaza governorate attributed to the variables of (sex, specialty and years of service).

Cowie, Taylor & Croxford (2007): This paper considers what ‘tough, intelligent accountability’ might mean, and how this might differ from systems that are currently in place in Scottish secondary schools. It focuses on the role of the Standard Tables and Charts (STACS) in current accountability systems. STACS are derived from National Qualifications data for each Scottish secondary school, to compare the performance of each subject in the school and to analyse performance in the attainment measures within National Priorities. They are used in performance reviews and inspections to hold schools and teachers to account for students’ performance. The paper considers whether STACS can be considered a form of ‘intelligent accountability’ or whether perverse results are intrinsic to such statistical systems. It further considers how the accountability system could be made more intelligent.

Sahlberg (2007): This paper suggests that there is an urgent need to critically discuss the notion of accountability in the public sector. It puts forward the view that accountability as it is now conceived and used is unintelligent accountability, and proposes some avenues that would appear to be worth exploring to develop more intelligent forms of accountability. This study is based on some experience of one observer of the Canadian scene from the mezzanine in the national capital. It may call for flats and sharps, and the remedies proposed may not be optimal. Readers are invited to reflect on what sort of experiments might be called for if the ones proposed here are not seen as either wise or useful. Finally the study offered intelligent accountability as an alternative. It is based on a better understanding of the notion of burden of office and context; it is of necessity soft; and to be effective, it must be forward looking and geared to experimentalism, social learning and better performance.

Through the above, we note the importance of Intelligent Accountability, and the efforts of the UNRWA in Gaza Governorates do to develop the practice of this accountability, this is clear by what UNRWA is doing to raise the practice degree of intelligent accountability, and this confirms the importance of this study is to determine the personal characteristics that affect the degree of implementation of Intelligent Accountability among Principals in UNRWA schools.

3. Study Problem

Due to the importance of Intelligent Accountability in fostering school reform, and that Intelligent Accountability allows more freedom in curriculum planning, allows teachers to meet social and cultural needs of the students, and improve teaching methods, and makes the evaluation process responsive, UNRWA is seeking to raise the implementation degree of Intelligent Accountability in schools, Never the less, there are deficiencies in the application of this type of accountability. From here the study came to discuss the impact of personal variables of School Principals at the UNRWA to estimate the implementation degree of Intelligent Accountability in this question:

Are there any statistically significant differences at the level of (α ≤ 0.05) between the mean estimates of principals in UNRWA schools for the implementation degree of Intelligent Accountability attributed to personal variables (Gender, Educational Qualification, Years of Service)?

3.1. Study Hypotheses

1.  There are no statistically significant differences at the level of (α ≤ 0.05) between the mean estimates of principals in UNRWA schools for the implementation degree of Intelligent Accountability attributed to the personal variable Gender (Male, Female).

2.  There are no statistically significant differences at the level of (α ≤ 0.05) between the mean estimates of principals in UNRWA schools for the implementation degree of Intelligent Accountability attributed to the personal variable Educational Qualification (Bachelor , MA or PhD).

3.  There are no statistically significant differences at the level of (α ≤ 0.05) between the mean estimates of principals in UNRWA schools for the implementation degree of Intelligent Accountability attributed to the personal variable Years of Service (less than 5 years, from 5 to 10 years, more than 10 years).

3.2. Study Objectives

This study aimed to investigate the effect of personal variables of School Principals to estimate the implementation degree of Intelligent Accountability attributed to Accountability attributed to personal variables (Gender, Educational Qualification, Years of Service).

3.2.1. Importance of the Study

The study gains importance through the following:

1 The importance of Intelligent Accountability to provide support to make appropriate decisions, and provide the necessary requirements for principals to practice effective leadership in their schools.

2  The study may be useful for interested researchers, school administrators, and decision makers in Educational Departments of UNRWA and Palestinian Ministry of Education, to know the impact of personal variables on the implementation degree of Intelligent accountability, and take appropriate decisions to develop this form of accountability.

3  This research may be a cause for further research on the subject of Intelligent accountability

3.2.2. Limitations of the Study

The study was limited to state the impact of personal variables on estimated degree of Intelligent Accountability among UNRWA schools' principals for the study domains: (Mutual trust, Responsibility and Participation, Quality of Education, Comprehensive assessment and diversity of Performance Indicators, Effective Feedback, and Motivation and Enthusiasm) in Gaza governorates; during the second semester of the academic year 2013/2014.

3.3. Definition of Terms

1.  Intelligent Accountability: is a framework to ensure that schools work effectively and efficiently towards both the common good and the fullest development of their pupils. It uses a rich set of data that gives full expression to the strengths and weaknesses of the school in fulfilling the potential of pupils. It combines internal school processes with levels of external monitoring appropriate to the state of development of each individual school (Hopkins, 2013: 153).

2.  The researcher defines Intelligent accountability as: A technique practiced by the UNRWA schools' Principals in Gaza Governorates based on mutual trust to promote human relations between teachers, and a commitment to professional ethics, and self-evaluation skills, by providing them with effective feedback, and encourage them for team work, using incentives in order to achieve the required educational quality which meets the administration and community requirements.

3.  Personal variables: are factors associated with individual person, such as: sex, educational qualification, and years of service.

4.  Schools Principal: as stated in UNRWA, he is: " the designated official by UNRWA educational department for leading and managing the school, and is responsible for the provision of appropriate educational environment, and the supervisor of all staff in the school to coordinate their efforts, directing them, and to monitor and support professional development for them, to ensure the functioning of the educational process and to achieve school message" (UNRWA .2011: 2(.

5.  UNRWA schools in Gaza Governorates: "any educational institution or a private non-governmental organization operated by or supervised by the relief agency for Palestinian refugees" (Ministry of Education and Higher Education, 2013: 6(.

6.  Gaza Governorate: "Is a part of the Palestinian coastal plain, with an area of (365) square kilometers, and extends on the east coast of the Mediterranean Sea, with a length of (45) km, and a width of (6-12) kilometers. The Palestinian National Authority divided Gaza Strip administratively into five governorates as: the northern Gaza, Central Gaza, Khan Younis, Rafah "(Palestinian Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation, 1997: 14).

3.4. Study Method and Procedure

The researcher used descriptive analytical approach in this study and the study population consisted of (245) male and female school principals for the (2013-2014) school year. The sample of the study was a survey and the recovered questionnaires were (236) with a recovery percentage of (96.33%), as shown in the table below:

Table 1. Shows the sample distributed on the study variables

3.4.1. Study Instrument

To achieve the purposes of the study, the authors accessed some of the previous related literature about the recent study problem, and had benefited from educational experts to build the instrument of this study, they built a questionnaire consisted of (57) distributed on six domains: (Mutual trust, Responsibility and Participation, Quality of education, Comprehensive assessment and diversity of Performance Indicators, Effective Feedback, and Motivation and Enthusiasm).

The researcher checked Validity for the study instrument, by showing it to (17) educational expert, to show their opinion about every item in relation with its domain and to the study problem, and she take their opinion to change and replace or omit non related items.

The reliability for the instrument was verified by two ways: Split-Half Coefficient in which the total reliability coefficient was (0.954) , and ALPHA-Cronbach's Coefficient in which the total reliability coefficient was (0.973).

After collecting study data the authors reviewed it and inserted it into computer, gave every item a degree according to Likert 5 degree scale for practicing intelligent accountability in numbers: (5) for very high practice, (4) for high practice, (3) for medium practice, (2) for low practice, (1) for very low practice.

3.4.2. Statistical Analysis

The researcher inserted the data to (SPSS) program on computer, data were analysed using the following statistical methods: Frequencies, Averages, Percentages, Pearson correlation coefficient, Spearman Brown for equal Split-half, correlation coefficient, Guttmann Equation for unequal split-half, Alpha Cronbach's correlation coefficient, T.Test for differences between the means of two independent samples, and One Way ANOVA for differences between the averages of three samples.

4. Study Findings and Discussion

The authors will show the findings of the study and try to discuss their opinion for :

Are there any statistically significant differences at the level of (α ≤ 0.05) between the mean estimates of principals in UNRWA schools for the implementation degree of Intelligent Accountability attributed to personal variables (Gender, Educational Qualification, Years of Service)?

To answer this question the authors had put some hypotheses as follow:

4.1. The First Hypotheses

There are no statistically significant differences at the level of (α ≤ 0.05) between the mean estimates of principals in UNRWA schools for the implementation degree of intelligent accountability attributed to the personal variable Gender (Male, Female).

The authors used T. Test for differences between the means of two independent samples as shown in the Table (2) below:

From the above table it's Clear that the value of calculated "T" is less than the value of Tabulated "T" in all areas and the total degree of the questionnaire, and this indicates that there is no statistically significant differences attributed to variable "Gender", the authors discuss that because the learning conditions faced by male and female principals is the same, through the application of the laws, regulations and instructions issued by the Department of Education in UNRWA, which regulates the functions of managers and teachers in its schools. This result is the same in (Salama, 2013) study, (Hassan, 2010) study, and (Abu Hashish, 2010) study, which have stated that there is statistically significant differences attributed to the variable "Gender", and supports the results of the current study.

4.2. The Second Hypotheses

There are no statistically significant differences at the level of (α ≤ 0.05) between the mean estimates of principals in UNRWA schools for the implementation degree of Intelligent Accountability attributed to the personal variable Educational Qualification (Bachelor, Postgraduate).

The authors used T.Test as shown in the Table (3) below:

Table 2. Averages, standard deviations, T value attributed to the variable "Gender".

Tabled T Value on freedom degree (234) and (α = 0.05) = 1.96

Tabled T Value on freedom degree (234) and (α = 0.01) = 2.58

Table 3. Averages, standard deviations, T value attributed to the variable " Educational Qualification ".

Tabled T Value on freedom degree (234) and (α = 0.05) = 1.96

Tabled T Value on freedom degree (234) and (α = 0.01) = 2.58

From the above table it's Clear that the value of calculated "T" is less than the value of Tabulated "T" in all areas and the total degree of the questionnaire, and this indicates that there is no statistically significant differences attributed to variable "Educational Qualification", the authors justifies that because:

1  The policy to assign school principals impose the choice for the most efficient ones, regardless of their qualifications, with an emphasis on obtaining a bachelor's degree.

2  The ability differences of school principals to carry out the administrative tasks assigned to them according to their educational qualifications.

3  UNRWA does not give a promotion for professional qualification, hence administrative expertise is not gained by educational qualification, but through practice and follow of modern management methods.

4  Intelligent Accountability is a new approach, which is not taught in the master's or doctoral or even in the bachelor programs in Gaza governorate universities.

5  Intelligent accountability depends on the ability of principals to develop self-reflective thinking skills among teachers, and provide them with effective feedback in a diplomatic style.

4.3. The Third Hypotheses

There are no statistically significant differences at the level of (α ≤ 0.05) between the mean estimates of principals in UNRWA schools for the implementation degree of Intelligent Accountability attributed to the personal variable Years of Service (less than 5 years, from 5 to 10 years, more than 10 years).

The authors used One Way ANOVA for differences between the averages of three samples as shown in the table (4) below:

Table 4. Variance, squares sum, freedom degrees, squares average, F value attributed to the variable "Years of Service".

Tabled F Value on freedom degree (2,233) and (α = 0.01) = 4.71.

Tabled F Value on freedom degree (2,233) and (α = 0.05) = 3.04.

From the above table, it's clear that calculated F value is less than tabulated F value for (α ≤ 0.05) in the following domains: (Mutual Trust, Responsibility and Participation, Quality of Education, Comprehensive assessment and diversity of Performance Indicators ). so this indicates that there are no statistically significant differences attributed to variable "Years of Service" for these domains.

The calculated F value is greater than tabulated F value for (α ≤ 0.05) in the following domains: Effective Feedback, Motivation and Enthusiasm, so this indicates that there are statistically significant differences attributed to variable "Years of Service", and to find out the direction of the differences, the authors used Scheffe dimensional test as shown in figures below:

Table 5. Scheffe test for "Effective feedback" domain attributed to the variable "Years of Service".

* statistically significant at (α ≤ 0.01).

From the above table it's clear that there is statistically significant differences between the service less than (5) years, and service from (5-10) years, and service more than (10) years, for the service of five years, and there is no clear statistically significant differences in other years of service.

Table 6. Scheffe test for "Motivation and Enthusiasm" domain attributed to the variable "Years of Service".

*statistically significant at (α ≤ 0.01).

Table 7. Scheffe test for the total degree of the questionnaire attributed to the variable "Years of Service".

*statistically significant at (α ≤ 0.01).

From the above table it's clear that there are statistically significant differences between the service less than (5) years, and the service from (5-10) years, and the service more than (10) years, for the service of five years. And there are no clear statistically significant differences in other years of service.

From the above table it is clear that there are statistically significant differences between the service less than (5) years, and service from (5-10) years, and service more than (10) years, for the service of five years, and there is no clear statistically significant differences in other years of service.

•  There are no statistically significant differences for (Mutual Trust, Responsibility and Participation, Quality of Education, Comprehensive Assessment and diversity of Performance Indicators) domains attributed to variable "Years of Service". The authors explains that to the policies and regulations issued by the Department of Education in UNRWA, and area directors forward them via e-mail to UNRWA schools principals, also UNRWA provides training programs for school principals according to their years of service.

•  There are statistically significant differences in (Effective Feedback, Motivation and Enthusiasm) domains attributed to variable "Years of Service". The authors explain that because the new principals are more flexible to use new administrative methods especially in the field of intelligent accountability, and that new principals are less familiar with the teachers skills, so they pay attention to provide effective feedback to all teachers, as they are more attracted to prove efficiency through upgrading the performance of their teachers, while providing feedback becomes routine work and the traditional kind among principals whose service years is more than five years, and become less enthusiastic about the use of these methods.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

The results of this study revealed that the gender of the school principals had no effect on the implementation degree of intelligent accountability because, it is a new concept to all school principals regardless of their gender. In addition, the implementation degree of intelligent accountability was not affected by the educational qualification of the school principals, hence administrative expertise is not gained by educational qualifications, but through practice and application of modern management methods. Practicing intelligent accountability depends on the ability of school principals to develop self-reflective thinking skills among teachers, and provide them with effective feedback in a diplomatic style. Finally, years of service had a negative effect on the implementation of intelligent accountability. School principals with less than five years of service indicated that they practiced intelligent accountability more than those with 5-10 or more than 10 years of service, which indicate that newly appointed principals are more ready to accept and practice new concepts and techniques than their older colleagues.

On light of these results, the authors recommend that UNRWA education directorates should hold lectures and seminars for school principals to clarify the concept and criteria of intelligent accountability.

Appendix

Final form Questionnaire

Personal Information:

Please put (√) in the box that applies to you:

Intelligent Accountability Questionnaire:

References

1. Abu Hashish, B. (2010). The degree of accountability to teachers for Secondary Schools Principals in Gaza Governorate. Islamic University Journal (Humanities series). Vol. (18),No. (2), pp. 597-626.
2. Al-Ameer, M. and Awamleh, A. (2011). The application degree of quality assurance standards in the Jordanian schools from the supervisors viewpoint. Jordanian Journal of Educational Sciences. Vol. (7), No.(1), pp. 59-76.
3. Al-Emari, H. (2004). The reality of educational accountability in the Ministry of Education in Jordan: An Analytical developmental Study. University of Jordan, Amman.
4. Al-Emari, H. (2011). Accountability in educational systems. Jordan: the modern world library.
5. Ayesh, A. (2009). School management "educational theories and their applications". Amman: Dar Al-Masirra Library.
6. Barber, M (2004): The Virtue of Accountability: System Redesign, Inspection, and Incentives in the Era of Informed Professionalism. Journal of Education, Vol. (185)No. (1). P.7-38.
7. Battah, A. (2006). Contemporary Issues in Educational Administration. Amman: Al-Shoroq House for publication and distribution.
8. Bousted, M. (2012). Inspection 2012 – Ofsted consultation on new framework for inspection of maintained schools and academies.Work Sheet submitted to Association of Teachers and Lecturers.
9. CATHOLIC EDUCATION OFFICE MELBOURNE (2009). A Learning and Teaching Strategy for the Archdiocese of Melbourne. Fraynework, Victoria Parade East Melbourne.
10. Cowie, M., Taylor, D. and Croxford, L. (2007): ‘Tough, Intelligent Accountability’ in Scottish Secondary SCHOOLS AND THE ROLE OF STANDARD TABLES AND CHARTS (STACS): A CRITICAL APPRAISAL. Scottish Educational Review, Vol. (39), No. (1), P. 29-50.
11. Dealy, D (2007). Managing by Accountability. What Every Leader Needs to Know about Responsibility, Integrity--and Results. Greenwood Publishing Group.
12. Ellison, S. (2009): Hard-Wired for Innovation? Comparing Two Policy Paths toward Innovative Schooling. International Education, Vol. (39) Issue (1). P (30-48).
13. Ellison, S. (2012): Intelligent Accountability: Re-Thinking the Concept of "Accountability" in the Popular Discourse of Education Policy. Journal of Thought, Vol. 47, Issue 2, Page 19–41.
14. Fullan, M. & Leithwood, K. (2010). GOOD GOVERNANCE FOR SCHOOL BOARDS: An Introduction to the Trustee Professional Development Program. CENTRE FOR GOVERNANCE EXCELLENCE, the Ontario Education Services Corporation.
15. Hassan, M. (2010). The two degrees of accountability and effectiveness and the relationship between them among secondary schools Principals in West Bank governorates from the point of view of employees in the Departments of Education. MA Thesis. Al-Najah National University, Palestine.
16. Hassan, M. (2010). The two degrees of accountability and effectiveness and the relationship between them among secondary schools Principals in West Bank governorates from the point of view of employees in the Departments of Education. MA Thesis. Al-Najah National University, Palestine.
17. Hodgson, G. K. (2011): Creating a climate of intelligent accountability in all-through academies, National College for School Leadership.
18. Hopkins, D (2013). Exploding the Myths of School Reform. Open university Press. McGraw-Hill Education.
19. Lopez, J. (2010) Review of All Systems Go: The Change Imperative for Whole System Reform by Michael Fullan. Education Review, 13. From: http://www.edrev.info/reviews/rev994.pdf (Accessed in 06/03/2014).
20. Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation (1997). The first version of planning Palestine. Palestinian Authority, Palestine.
21. Mustafa, S. (2007). Proposed foundations to build a quality assurance system for higher education. UNRWA, Institute of Education, Jordan.
22. Okhuarashidh, A. (2006). Accountability and effectiveness in educational administration. Amman: Dar Al-Hammed library.
23. O’Neill, O. (2002): A question of Trust. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge CB2 1RP, United Kingdom.
24. Palestinian Ministry of Education and Higher Education (2013). Educational Statistical Yearbook for the academic year 2012/2013, Ramallah, Palestine.
25. Sahlberg, P. (2007). Education policies for raising student learning: the Finnish approach. Journal of Education Policy. Vol. 22, No. 2. pp. (147–171)
26. Sahlberg, P. (2007): A plea for intelligent accountability. The Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. (37), Issue (3), Oct 2007, Page 49-66.
27. Secondary Heads Association (SHA) (2003): Towards Intelligent Accountability for Schools a policy statement on School Accountability. Policy paper 5.
28. Salama, J. (2013). Accountability Role In Improving UNRWA Teachers' Performance As Perceived by School Principals And The Ways of Developing It. MA Thesis. Al-Azhar University, Gaza, Palestine.
29. Slater, L. (2013). Quality assurance and accountability: Building high-performing and improving education systems. CfBT Education Trust.
30. Tarkhan, M. (2006). Accountability: concept, types, and applications in modern school administration. UNRWA: Department of Education, Institute of Education. HT.1.2006.
31. Toomey Michele (1999) "Learning Self-Expression with Accountability" http://www.mtoomey.com/selfexpression.html (Accessed in 03/03/2014).
32. UNRWA (2011). Function Declaration for director of educational area. Personnel department in UNRWA, Gaza.
33. Vanderploeg, L. (2013). LEADING FOR DEEPER CHANGE. In CASE. Vol. (54), No. (4). Page. 2-23.
34. Wyatt-Smith, C. & Klenowski, V. (2012): Whole School Approaches to Standards and Improvement: "Intelligent Accountability". Classroom Connections — Issue 4, October 2012, Department of Education, Training and Employment.
35. Žalec, B. (2013). Trust, Accountability, and Higher Education. SYNTHESIS PHILOSOPHICA 55–56 (1–2/2013) pp. (65–81).