Educational accountability in EFL contexts: Providing remedies

Establishing high standards for educational accountability and informing those not already familiar with the basic components of a strong accountability system is a fresh avenue in EFL context, particularly in Iran, where the perceived shortcomings of English learning in the public sector are evident. The present mixed methods study used educational accountability as a theoretical framework to determine the level to which its elements (Goals, Performance Indicators, Design Decisions, Consequences, Communication, Support, and System Evaluation, Monitoring, and Improvement) differ in Iranian high schools and English language institutes when concerning school principals, English teachers, parents, and students. To this end, 300 EFL learners, 120 parents, 100 English teachers, and 60 principals were selected to complete the piloted and validated educational accountability questionnaires. The reliability of all questionnaires was around 0.95. To better understand the results of the questionnaires, 86 semi-structured interviews were conducted. The results of the t-tests indicated a statistically significant difference between the levels of accountability in both EFL contexts. The only exception was the aspect of Communication, which was almost the same in both educational contexts. The results of the semi-structured interviews also confirmed ABOUT THE AUTHORS Leila Zarei is a Ph.D. candidate of TEFL in Islamic Azad University of Shiraz. She has taught English at different institutes and Shiraz Medical University and has published some books and articles. Her areas of interest are research methods, statistics, and teaching methods. Mohammad Sadegh Bagheri is the assistant professor and faculty member of Shiraz Islamic Azad University. He holds a Ph.D. from Shiraz University. He has published scores of books and articles mainly on international exams, teacher training and research methods. He has presented miscellaneous articles at local, national and international conferences. Currently, he is Foreigh Languages College Dean and faculty member of Islamic Azad University, Shiraz. Firooz Sadighi received his Ph.D. degree from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, U.S.A. in 1982. His field of specialization includes Linguistics and L2 Acquisition. His research areas cover syntax, semantics, second language acquisition, psycholinguistics, and reading skills and strategies. PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT Accountability is considered as one of the most essential mechanisms in each education system towards fulfilling goals. Therefore, the lack of educational accountability in the education system will lead to poor learning achievements of the next generations. In this study a model of educational accountability was used in two Iranian EFL contexts (high schools and English language institutes) to see which context was more accountable. The educational accountability model contained seven key elements: Goals, Performance Indicators, Design Decisions, Consequences, Communication, Support, and System Evaluation, Monitoring, and Improvement. 300 EFL learners, 120 parents, 100 English teachers, and 60 principals were selected to answer four educational accountability questionnaires about teaching and learning English. Moreover, 86 participants were interviews. The results showed more accountability in English language institutes than high schools in Iran. This study provided some remedies to increase accountability for teaching and learning English in Iran. Zarei et al., Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1669381 https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1669381 © 2019 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Received: 14 June 2019 Accepted: 15 September 2019 First Published: 24 September 2019 *Corresponding author: Mohammad Sadegh Bagheri Department of English Language, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran E-mail: Bagheries@gmail.com Reviewing editor: Vonzell Agosto, University of South Florida, Tampa, USA Additional information is available at the end of the article


PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
Accountability is considered as one of the most essential mechanisms in each education system towards fulfilling goals. Therefore, the lack of educational accountability in the education system will lead to poor learning achievements of the next generations. In this study a model of educational accountability was used in two Iranian EFL contexts (high schools and English language institutes) to see which context was more accountable. The educational accountability model contained seven key elements: Goals, Performance Indicators, Design Decisions, Consequences, Communication, Support, and System Evaluation, Monitoring, and Improvement. 300 EFL learners, 120 parents, 100 English teachers, and 60 principals were selected to answer four educational accountability questionnaires about teaching and learning English. Moreover, 86 participants were interviews. The results showed more accountability in English language institutes than high schools in Iran. This study provided some remedies to increase accountability for teaching and learning English in Iran.

Introduction
In governance and ethics, accountability can be clearly defined as the liability, answerability, blameworthiness, and account-giving (Dykstra, 1939). In other words, accountability is widely used within different contexts as responsibility, particularly in education, when resources are allocated to schools or other institutions, they become accountable for producing desired outcomes. However, it is important to determine the level and type of accountability model needed to achieve the expected results (M. Peire, Personal Communication, 31 August 2018).
The history of accountability reveals the alternative approaches to creating educational accountability (EA) systems. Although the objectives of accountability models were maintaining compliance with regulations, the new models have given a sharper focus on improving student performance with respect to satisfactory outcome including high test scores or positive graduation results (Fuhrman, 1999).
As Perie, Park, and Klau (2007) mentioned, the new accountability systems have introduced some radical changes not only in the types of accountability measures but also in respect of who is accountable. Therefore, accountability systems are currently shifting their focuses onto school levels as the basic unit of change and are pinpointing constant improvement strategies at school. In fact, educational institutions, especially schools, are firmly established to fulfill specific objectives. Goal fulfillment of such educational establishments is impossible without providing effective mechanisms as an attempt to ensure the full implementation of the mechanisms' programs or policies. As a result, accountability is considered as one of the most important structures in each education system towards addressing sustainable goals and reliable service delivery to the public.
Accountability systems imply that satisfactory performance is associated with organizational goals, which means accountability is a goal-oriental activity (Dangara, 2016). Accordingly, the lack of EA in the education system will be manifested in poor learning achievements of the next generations (Ahmed, 2015). Furthermore, in schools, accountability is typically related to the management of resources to guarantee the accomplishment of the primary goals. The integration of accountability with management contributes to control indiscipline and increase efficiency in the system. The policymakers should be aware of the significance of accountability in education to avoid low quality of school products, defective managerial procedures, and lack of EA in schools (Dangara, 2016).
Although extensive research has been conducted on EA, particularly in the United States and Europe, no single study exists based on administrative EA frameworks for EFL context in Iran, where the grammar-translation method and the conventional teacher-centered approach have contributed to the apparent failure of English learning in the public sector and the development of the private sector (Davari & Aghagolzadeh, 2015). Moreover, according to bulk of research devoted to EA, it is revealed that most of it has focused on one aspect of the EA components or agents neglecting the other important properties. Since EA plays an important role in the school development, more research is needed to shed significant light on this issue in EFL contexts. Perie et al. (2007) noted that EA contributes to global thinking about schooling, promoting learning and ensuring school effectiveness. Several attempts have been made to categorize the key elements of EA. Baker, Linn, Herman, and Koretz (2002) demonstrated conclusively 22 standards for EA categorized into five key groups: System components, Testing, Stakes, Public reporting, and Evaluation. Hanushek and Raymond (2002) listed five main components of accountability systems including Goals, Content standards, Measurement, Consequences, and Reporting. Carlson (2002) identifies five components: Goals, Indicators, Decisions, Rewards and Sanctions, and Remedy.

Literature review
According to Perie et al. (2007), EA has seven core elements: (1) Goals is the basic framework which represents the purposes, uses, and settings for an accountability system.
(2) Performance Indicators refers to all factors related to setting goals.
(3) Design decisions is taken into account after applying all performance indicators to make decisions about teachers, schools, or district effectiveness.
(4) Consequences includes providing well-deserved rewards and official sanctions based on the goals.
(5) Communication deals with reporting results, communicating goals, implementing changes, and accepting consequences for achieving or not achieving goals.
(6) Support is the focus of attention of policy-makers and school agents on devising a plan for allocating substantial resources to clearly highlight that all schools meet their goals.
(7) System evaluation, monitoring, and development is concerned with providing a mechanism for close analysis of the systems to ensure improvements.
A considerable amount of literature has focused on designing and evaluating an accountability system in schools or states (e.g. Ananda & Rabinowitz, 2001;Arcia, Patrinos, Porta, & Macdonald, 2010;Barton, 2006;Carlson, 2002;D'Brot, Lyons, & Landl, 2017;Goff, 2000;Stecher & Kirby, 2004). Porter, Chester, and Schlesinger (2004) claimed that some EA models have brought only individual students into sharp focus. In other models, the major focus has diverted to schools. In some cases, teachers and other educators in schools have been highly regarded as agents either directly or indirectly. Other systems have taken schools, students, teachers, and parents into serious consideration. As Hossain (2017) maintained, policy makers and education providers along with school principals, teachers, parents, and students are accountable for students' achievement. Porter et al. (2004) recommended that accountability models contain a balance of all accountability agents. They assumed that holding schools professionally accountable while students do not fulfill their duties is biased and inappropriate. In the following sections, EA agents are briefly discussed.

Principal accountability
The principal accountability systems require technical supervisors to have annual performance-based system evaluation of all school principals. The objectives of the evaluations are expanding teaching and learning by developing the principals' levels of abilities to create professionally educational environment and aim at improving school outcomes, teacher effectiveness, and student achievement (Larson, 2011). Accordingly, it is asserted that schools must be evaluated and observed in such visible and measurable ways that are accessible to all (Taylor, 2005). Therefore, school principals are asserted to be not only leaders but also managers in their schools (Kowalski, 2010;Pollock & Hauseman, 2015). Ball (2017) tried to determine how school principals deal with accountability. The results revealed that school principals implement strategies and help raise general accountability expectations. In line with other researchers, Iranian researchers studied the responsibility and accountability of schools in Iran (Moradi, Bin Hussin, & Barzegar, 2012). In conclusion, reviewing the related literature revealed that there is a limited knowledge of EA in EFL context regarding English school principals.

Teacher accountability
One of "the most oft-expressed statements about teaching is that nothing is more central to student learning than the quality of teacher" (Galluzzo, 2005, p. 142). Moreover, according to Sanders and Horn (1998), "the teacher effects on student achievement have been found to be additive and cumulative with little evidence that subsequent effective teachers can offset the effects of ineffective ones" (cited in Rushton, Morgan, & Richard, 2007, p. 32). Regarding what was mentioned earlier about the utmost significance of teachers, teacher evaluation and its importance cannot be de-emphasized.
In 2008, the General Teaching Council for England (GTC) ordered Research ANd Development (RAND) Corporation to make proposals for a reformed accountability model for school teachers. As a result, the teacher accountability is considered in teachers' professional practice and product to distribute balance between external control and teacher autonomy in order to offer a comprehensive service to the public and students (Levitt, Janta, & Wegrich, 2008). In another study, Navidinia, Kiani, Akbari, and Ghaffar Samar (2014) examined the efficacy of the recent Iranian teacher evaluation system based on EFL teachers' perspectives. They asked 423 EFL teachers to answer a survey included both open-ended and Likert-scaled questions. The results indicated that the existing teacher evaluation system in Iran did not lead to teacher professionalism and teacher accountability.

Learner accountability
Several attempts have been made to hold students accountable for attending the class (Benner, Sutphen, Leonard, & Day, 2010;McLaughlin et al., 2014). New teaching strategies ought to challenge schools to actively engage learners in going to class. They need to fully share their evidence for their uses and highlight the expected outcome (Hawks, 2014). In addition, student engagements in class require effective collaboration. Thus, schools have to spend time to help students know how to learn in collaboration (White, 2011). In their thorough study of learner accountability, McLaughlin et al. (2014) used frequent classroom assessments and student presentations to appraise learning results.

Parent accountability
Parents' careful choice of schools and wise decisions about their children's constant school attendance contribute to more accountability. Provided that parents were able to participate in their children's educational decisions, they could dispute the validity and reliability of officials' plans about schooling. Therefore, they could evaluate their children's achievement, and if they are not satisfied, they would change their children's schools or seriously challenge their systems (Tweedie, 1989).
Active parental involvement in schools has been the subject of investigation for quite a lot of scholars (Brown & Anfara, 2003;Lee, Kushner, & Cho, 2007). Accordingly, many schools in America are implementing comprehensive school reform models to highly regard parents as a crucial factor to contribute to student and school achievement.

Purpose of the study
What we know about EA is largely based upon both the theoretical and empirical studies conducted in the United States and Europe. They proposed different comprehensive EA frameworks including essential concepts, principal elements, and practical implications (e.g. Carlson, 2006;Jones, 2004). In addition, the majority of previous studies on EA mainly focused on developing state accountability systems. As a result, there is hardly any published document on EA in Iranian EFL contexts. Therefore, the current study, with the aim of filling the perceived gap, explored primarily whether there is a significant difference between EA in high schools and English language institutes for teaching English in Iran regarding school principals, English teachers, parents, and learners. The second objective dealt with concerning if any key elements of EA based on Perie et al. (2007) can predict the strengths or weaknesses of teaching English in Iranian educational system. Finally, the third objective was offering possible solutions to deal with lack of EA elements in two EFL contexts in Iran (institutes and high schools). To this end, the following research questions were raised.
(1) Is the EA level different in the two Iranian EFL contexts of institutes and high schools regarding principals, teachers, parents, and students?
(2) Which key elements of EA are more significant in two Iranian EFL contexts of institutes and high schools?
(3) What are the possible remedies to improve EFL education through strengthening EA?

Design
A mixed methods approach was conducted to examine the EA in high schools and English language institutes through both questionnaires and interviews. In fact, interviews provide deep data by thoroughly exploring into individuals' perceptions (Richards, 2009).

Participants
A total of 580 (348 females and 232 males) Iranian principals, English teachers, parents, and students from both contexts of high schools and English language institutes participated in the quantitative part of the study. School principals with at least five years of management experience and teachers with at least three years of teaching EFL were selected randomly while convenient sampling (the students of the sampled teachers) was used to select students and parents from both contexts from Shiraz, Ahvaz, Yasooj, and Gachsaran. Among the participants, for the interview, which covered the qualitative part of the study, 86 participants (52 females and 36 males) including 10 principals, 20 English teachers, 26 parents, and 30 students were chosen purposefully based on Dornyei' maximum variation sampling (2007). It is noteworthy that all the interviews were conducted in Shiraz, where the researchers managed them easily. Table 1 shows the participants in both phases of the study, their numbers, their ages, and the contexts. Gender, age, and educational background of the participants were not studied in the current research.

Quantitative phase of the study
In the quantitative phase of the study, four questionnaires, validated through piloting were applied to collect the data: (1) Principal Accountability in English Teaching in Iran Questionnaire (PAETIQ) (See Appendix A) (2) Teacher Accountability in English Teaching in Iran Questionnaire (TAETIQ) (See Appendix B) (3) Learner Accountability in English Learning in Iran Questionnaire (LAELIQ) (See Appendix C) (4) Parent Accountability in English Learning in Iran Questionnaire (PAELIQ) (See Appendix D) The questionnaires were on a five-point Likert Scale constructed by the researchers of this study based on Perie, Park, & Klau's checklist of EA (2007). All the questionnaires included 46 items categorized into seven constructs: Goals, Performance indicators, Design decisions, Consequences, Communication, Support, and System evaluation, monitoring, and improvement. Table 2 shows the items of the EA questionnaires and the number of the questions.
To prevent and stop any possible misunderstanding, all the EA questionnaires except the (TAETIQ) were translated into Persian. The Validation of the EA questionnaires included four steps. Firstly, making the questionnaires, the researchers of this study were inspired by Perie, Park, & Klau's checklist of EA (2007).Then, the items were enforced by a bunch of other items collected through tentative random interview with some experts in the field. Secondly, two experienced TEFL English teachers reviewed the questionnaires to add or omit any items to reinforce the clarity and remove ambiguity. Thirdly, to assess the questionnaire validity, the (PAETIQ) was handed to 15 school principals, the (TAETIQ) was given to 25 English teachers, the (PAELIQ) was distributed to 30 parents, and the (LAELIQ) was given to 75 students for the first round piloting. The participants were asked to make their comments about any items generality and irrelevancy. Making substantial changes expressed by the participants, the four questionnaires were piloted with the same respondents for the second time in a fortnight interval. In the second piloting process, 8 school principals, 10 English teachers, 12 parents, and 20 students participated. Finally, a confirmatory factor analysis was run to confirm the validity of the questionnaires. The reliability was assessed by Cronbach's Alpha and was around .95 for all the questionnaires. In addition, the internal consistency of each questionnaire indicated a good degree of reliability.

Qualitative phase of the study
The researchers also administered semi-structured interviews with 4 classes of participants which were designed to probe deeply into the EA questionnaires. All semi-structured interviews consisted of 14 queries based on the checklist prepared by Perie et al. (2007). Moreover, two experts in the field of applied linguistics reviewed the interview questions (See Appendices E, F, G, I) for validity purposes.

Data collection procedure
Most participants completed the questionnaires in both contexts of high schools and English language institutes. However, some of the questionnaires were collected a few days later based on the agreement between the respondents and the researchers. The rest of the questionnaires were emailed to teachers and principals. The proper time allocated for filling out each questionnaire was 30 minutes.
In the qualitative phase of the study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 principals, 20 teachers, 26 parents, and 30 students to deepen the understanding of EA. The interviews were conducted in their mother tongue (Persian) and each interview took approximately  In order to analyze the quantitative data of the study, descriptive statistics and two independentsamples t-tests were used to compare the level of EA in high schools and English language institutes.

Phase II: Qualitative data analysis
The interviews were content-analyzed in the qualitative phase of the research to validate the respondents' answers to the related items in the questionnaires. All the semi-structured interviews were transcribed for thematic analysis to classify the main patterns and codify the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006;Dornyei, 2007). Then, based on the frequency analysis, the emerging themes were tabulated. Therefore, the items repeated in interview questions and Likert scale questionnaires were compared thoroughly.

Quantitative phase
To answer the first research question to see if the EA degree is different in both Iranian EFL contexts, the descriptive statistics for the EA (in Table 3) was divided into two groups: School and Institute with four subdivisions: Teachers, Principals, Students, and Parents.
As Table 3 indicates, the statistical analyses of School indicated the mean scores of teacher accountability (M = 3.71), principal accountability (M = 3.94), student accountability (M = 3.59), and parent accountability (M = 3.67). As for the Institute, the table also presents the mean scores of teacher accountability (M = 3.98), principal accountability (M = 4.29), student accountability (M = 3.86), and parent accountability (M = 3.80). Table 4 reveals the overall mean score in the context of Institute was higher than that of School. As indicated in Table 4, accountability at institutes (M = 3.91, SD = .49) received higher mean score than schools (M = 3.67, SD = .67). Table 5 reports the independent-samples t-test to examine the significance of the difference.
As demonstrated in Table 5, there seems to be a significant difference between levels of accountability in Iranian high schools and language institutes (t (57) = −5.06, p ≤ 0.000). Table 6 provides information to answer the second research question regarding which key elements of EA are more significant in Iranian EFL contexts.
As Table 6 illustrates, the mean scores for all essential elements of EA in the context of institutes (Principals, English teachers, Parents, Students) were higher than those of schools (Principals, English teachers, Parents, Students).
For the second research question, an independent-samples t-test was run to check the statistical differences among all EA elements in two different contexts. Table 7 is allocated to report the related data.
As Table 7 reveals, the significant levels for the EA elements of Support, Consequence, Goal, Design, Performance, and System are less than 0.05. Accordingly, there were significant differences  among these elements in both EFL contexts while there was not a significant difference in the rates of Communication (t (578) = −1.73, p ≤ 0.083) in both contexts.

Qualitative phase
As shown in Table 8, several high schools and English language institute principals, parents, learners, students, and teachers were interviewed to answer the questions covering the theme of the questionnaires about EA and its essential elements. The minimum percentages of each item are underlined.
As the above table signifies, the results of interviews were in line with the results of the questionnaires, which means there were more EA levels in the context of institutes in all accountability key elements. Generally, the interviewees expressed lower accountability levels in Iranian high schools. For example, regarding Goals and Suppoer 60% of the school principals were involved in considering effective English teaching and learning in their schools. Other principals strongly believed that Iranian high schools do not provide students with standard facilities and required skills to learn English effectively and communicatively. Accordingly, regarding Indicators, 64% of the high school students felt accountable for effective English learning. 70% of high school students considered Design as an element of accountability for English learning. About Consequences and Communication only 62% of parents with high school students noticed to these two components of EA. As a final remark, 70% of parents paid attention to the importance of System Evaluation, Monitoring, and Improvement factor to improve their children' English learning at high schools.

Remedies
Since one of the purposes of the present study was to find solutions to EA, the researchers of the current study provided some remedies for improving EA in Iranian EFL contexts. As Hossain said, "Past research has also found that an effective performance management system is important to monitor the duties of both individuals and organizations at various decision-making levelsˮ (2017, p. 2). Therefore, most remedies prepared by the researchers of this study are in line with policy makers' responsibilities. Table 9 represents the researchers' statements.

Discussion
This study explored the level of EA and its key elements in two educational contexts including high schools and language institutes. In addition, principals, teachers, parents, and learners were involved in the study. The results of the descriptive statistics of the first research question revealed more mean scores in language institutes. The inferential statistics also showed the significant difference between the levels of accountability in both contexts. These results were in line with the findings obtained from other studies (Dahmardeh, 2009;Khoshsima & Hashemi Toroujeni, 2017;Ostovar, 2006;Pazhouhesh, 2014;Rajmjoo, 2007). They argued that EFL in Iran has not been successful in fulfilling high school students' communicative needs. Also, compared with high schools, private language institutes have compensatory roles for the deficiency of EFL in Iran. Additionally, Sadeghi and Richards (2015) noted that in Iranian schools, the main focus is placed on grammar, reading comprehension, and vocabulary. Furthermore, listening and speaking skills are almost ignored in Iranian public sector due to lack of time and language laboratory (Borazjani & Bagheri, 2016). Hence, Communicative Language Teaching method seems hard to be implemented in Iranian schools. Since the Ministry of Education publishes and develops school English books, they suffer cultural significance (Ashari, & Zarrin, 2014). Both students and English teachers have low level of motivation at schools. As a consequence, English language institutes are the first choice for those who lack enough motivation (Meshkat & Hassani, 2012).
Concerning teacher accountability, this study accords with Gholami, Sarkhosh, and Abdi' s (2016) study which expressed that English teachers at language institutes have more communicative classes through exploiting student speaking time, permitting students to be more autonomous. Moreover, the existing standards in private schools contribute to more desired outcome, which means stronger student achievement (Fordham, 2004). The second research question asked whether the levels of EA components were the same in both contexts or not. The findings showed significant levels for EA elements except for communication, meaning that there was a higher accountability level in language institutes.
The results of semi-structured interviews confirmed those of the questionnaires. While Hallberg, Drill, Brown-Simms, Svedkauskaite, andAkerstrom (2009) andHossain (2017) applied Perie, Park, and Klaus' (2007) EA model, different results were obtained from their comparisons. Several state policymakers have taken the accountability model of this study and determined a unified theory of action in their state. For example, Ohio Department of Education (ODE) has extensive documentation using an explicit theory of action to allocate resources, and manage evaluation systems (Perie et al., 2007). Accordingly, Table 8 reports in all EA key elements, the interviewees expressed more accountability levels in institutes. Concerning goals, the school principals had no clear goals for EFL at high schools. Erpenbach (2002) mentioned lawmaking and policy can impressively affect the goals development and the accountability system design. With regards to performance indicators, the high school students could not make real connections between the performance indicators and their goals, while they should be wholly tied to the targets (Hallberg et al., 2009). Concerning design decisions, high school students were not provided with opportunities to make accurate decisions to reach their goals in English learning. Perie et al. (2007)  Policymakers should give the best ways to measure the standards of the curriculum and English books available at schools and institutes.

5
Policymakers should weigh the rules of the English learning environment at schools and institutes. 6 Policymakers should provide shared visions by all educational providers, teachers, local and national experts in order to make our EA for teaching and learning English world class.

7
Policymakers should decide to expand the English sessions at schools.

8
Policymakers should develop a precise system of shared responsibility among principals, teachers, parents, and students to improve teaching and learning English.

9
Policymakers should analyze the previous policies while making new ones and compare them with international standards of teaching and learning methods.

10
Policymakers should provide appropriate support (preferably financial supports) considering teaching and learning English through identifying the best high school, the best English institute, the best English teacher, the best English learner regarding English achievement.

11
Low performing high schools and English language institutes should be stopped immediately unless they obey the standards of EA requirements.

12
Policymakers should provide an online and interactive management information system to collect from school and institute files, the necessary information for state reporting and decision-making.

13
Parents should be informed how to measure their children's progress in English. For example, a website or a copy of the newspaper can be useful.
14 The education ministry must increase teachers and principals' salary to make them satisfied since financial matters are important.

15
All schools and institutes should provide students with the same opportunity to learn English effectively.

16
The education ministry should plan and provide longitudinal studies to evaluate the efficacy of the EA in Iranian EFL contexts.

17
Educational management administrators should give useful opportunity to assess and enhance the overall productiveness of the EA in Iranian EFL contexts continually.
maintained that designing decisions requires clarifying the functions of different indicators at the same time to show whether the decisions are based on the goals. As to consequences, parents were less likely to encourage their children to learn English effectively at school. People have different preferences for consequences; rewards make them more encouraged or they become more motivated by avoiding sanctions (Hanushek & Raymond, 2002). Therefore, accountability systems need to apply both rewards and punishments. Regarding communications, parents were less satisfied that they did not have adequate interaction with their children's English teachers at school. According to Hamilton and Stecher (2004), to increase pedagogical results, students and parents should have tight communications with the latest educational standards. According to Perie et al. (2007), the American Institutes of Research (AIR, 2006) mentioned that there were five common areas to support schools directly: "Needs assessment and planning, Data analysis, Capacity building, Resource allocation, and Progress monitoringˮ (p.11). Finally, concerning system evaluation, monitoring, and improvement, parents felt disappointed with tracking and evaluating their children's development in English learning at school. According to Hallberg et al. (2009), the accountability system should be monitored and assessed for constant improvement.
Turning to the last research question, the apparent difference between the two contexts of schools and institutes might be related to the field of language planning and policy that has had a Cinderella role in the educational system in Iran (Atai & Mazlum, 2013). As a result, there is an unstable connection between policy and practice in Iranian education systems; it is difficult to deal with different agendas among different agents of planning, ranging from ministry officials, curriculum designers, materials writers, test developers, supervisors, trainers, school principals, teachers, students, to parents (Mirhosseini & Khodakarami, 2015).

Conclusion and implications
This study probed into the level of EA in high schools and language institutes. It also investigated the components of EA across these educational contexts concerning principals, teachers, parents, and students.
The findings revealed that English language institutes had more EFL accountability than public high schools regarding principals, teachers, parents, and students. It can be concluded that accountability systems rely mostly on the social framework and cultural domains in which they function (Bracci, 2009, as cited in Rosenkvist, 2010. The selections of accountability tools, which means who are accountable, how the agents should be accountable, and which balance should be among different models of accountability might change when problems arise, when social objectives shift, and when new conditions appear (Darling-Hammond, 2004 as cited in Rosenkvist, 2010). On the other hand, improving schools and student achievement has become a national concern, which leads to highlighting EA. The desired goals will only be fulfilled by providing a situation that all individuals and institutions are held accountable for their responsibilities (Goff, 2000).
The results of the current study will provide important implications. They will broaden perspectives of EA to contribute to more effective EFL output in Iran. Firstly, policy makers will get much more familiar with the value of appropriate allocation and application of funds to achieve the best results in EFL. Moreover, they will realize that effective EFL system needs more powerful management and effective monitoring mechanism. Principals will also set higher expectations for teaching and learning English at public high schools, and they will make English teachers involved in purposeful discussions that will contribute to better results in teaching and learning English. Parents will get informed about their significant roles in their children's improvement in English learning, particularly at school. They will become aware of issues like curriculum expectations and positive relationships with their children's English teachers. Additionally, they will find some strategies to monitor their children at home to see if they are prepared for their English class or not. Next, students will be more successful in learning English due to the awareness of their accountability for learning English. Therefore, the more accountable school principals, English teachers, and parents will be, the more effectively students will learn English. Finally, English teachers will provide a learning atmosphere that will motivate English learners to enjoy learning English. In fact, in order to increase EA, all agents must collaborate on micro and macro levels (Nakpodia & Okiemute, 2011). Satisfactory agent accountability in EFL educational section reforms maladministration in both high schools and English language institutes.
Being aware of the limitations of the EA questionnaires along with semi-structures interviews, further research is suggested to conduct classroom observation to explore what teachers and students do at schools and language institutes.