Staff Editorial: Accountability within higher administration

In today’s public sphere, “[accountability] encourages better governed and managed public sector organizations by improving decision making and the efficient use of resources,” according to federation International Frameworks. “Enhanced stakeholder engagement, robust scrutiny, and oversight of those charged with primary responsibility for determining an entity’s strategic direction, operations, and accountability lead to more effective interventions and better outcomes for the public at large.”

In similar ways, school boards are held to this very standard, as their public is trying to figure out the best strategy and ways to improve and assist students in their journey; however, there are still many cases of a lack of accountability in decision-making within large educational institutions. 

For example, Social-Emotional Learning (SEL), according to District Resource Canter CASEL, “SEL advances educational equity and excellence through authentic school-family-community partnerships to establish learning environments and experiences that feature trusting and collaborative relationships, rigorous and meaningful curriculum and instruction, and ongoing evaluation. SEL can help address various forms of inequity and empower young people and adults to co-create thriving schools and contribute to safe, healthy, and just communities.”

However, in places like Utah, SEL and Critical Race Theory (CRT) are denied for various reasons; one school even removed a section in part due to a claim a parent made. Most times the implementation of CRT is a major point of contention among parents, leading to the removal of the curriculum in order to appease parents. However, to understand the pushback, it is crucial to first define CRT. In an article for Education Week, author Stephen Sawchuk explains, “Critical race theory is an academic concept that is more than 40 years old. The core idea is that race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.”

The debate about CRT seems endless, with school boards in Utah changing their curriculum at what seems like the drop of the hat. Accountability should be a requirement for these schools because of the direct impact on their students. Schools should feel required to say: “We are sorry for our actions, and here is what we are doing to fix them.”

Even in secondary schools, there is a sense of responsibility and openness with students. A story from the New York Post makes this clear: “A State University of New York at Fredonia professor is under investigation by the school after videos emerged of him defending pedophilia and insisting it wasn’t ‘obvious’ to him why it was wrong.” SUNY Fredonia consequently issued a statement; 2WGRZ released the full statement in which the professor was condemned for his words.

That is the difference between accountability and ignoring one’s actions—when someone is making decisions in front of the public, they need to be clear and know when to admit their wrongs; however, the reality is that most do not do this within higher administration—a fact that needs to change.