In response to accountability systems dominated by external inspections and achievement data, calls are being made for intelligent accountability or a new accountability paradigm that focuses on meaningful learning, enabled by professionally skilled and committed educators within the system. In such systems, the actors are encouraged to strive for continuous development in learning organisations based on teamwork, distributed leadership, and professional learning communities. School leaders are positioned between district level administrators and teachers in such processes and have the responsibility to secure professional development. Using the implementation of the national program ‘Assessment for Learning’ in Norway as a case, the article shows that leaders approach professional development differently. Analyses of interviews with leaders from 7 schools reveal three distinct approaches related to how school leaders perceive knowledge. Some school leaders assume that teachers have the necessary knowledge and skills and trust them to manage the implementation process without leader support. Other school leaders distrust teachers’ knowledge and skills and assume that the proper knowledge exists outside the school. These leaders seek external support when they meet teacher resistance. In a third approach, school leaders assume that knowledge develops through collaboration and thereby engage with teachers in continuous judgment about the implementation procedure. In the discussion, questions of trust and distrust are analysed in relation to how professional knowledge is developed and how professional discretion can support the development of intelligent accountability in schools.

中文翻译：

---

学校的智能问责：关于学校领导如何实施学习评估的研究

为响应由外部检查和成绩数据主导的问责制系统，正在呼吁智能问责制或新的问责制范式，该范式侧重于有意义的学习，由系统内具有专业技能和忠诚的教育工作者实现。在这样的系统中，鼓励参与者在基于团队合作、分布式领导和专业学习社区的学习型组织中努力不断发展。在此类过程中，学校领导位于区级行政人员和教师之间，并有责任确保专业发展。本文以挪威国家计划“学习评估”的实施为例，表明领导者以不同的方式处理职业发展。对 7 所学校领导的访谈分析揭示了三种与学校领导如何看待知识相关的不同方法。一些学校领导认为教师具备必要的知识和技能，并相信他们可以在没有领导支持的情况下管理实施过程。其他学校领导不信任教师的知识和技能，并认为适当的知识存在于学校之外。这些领导者在遇到教师阻力时会寻求外部支持。在第三种方法中，学校领导假设知识是通过合作发展的，从而与教师一起对实施程序进行持续判断。在讨论中，