In recent discussions about educational accountability, participants have joined one of two warring camps. In one corner are the advocates of results-driven accountability who claim that test scores are the most accurate measure of the quality of schools, teachers, and school leaders. In the opposite corner are the advocates of input-driven accountability who claim that the characteristics and professional practices of teachers and school leaders--along with a host of other factors, such as resources, home environment, and curriculum--must be the core measurements of a meaningful accountability system. The accountability fight is, to put it charitably, not illuminating. There must be a better way. Student-centered accountability recognizes that test scores are only one important measurement of student achievement. Input variables and planning processes are also important, but are they little more than good intentions if not rigorously linked to results. Educational leaders have two choices: They can rail against the system, hoping that standards, testing, and accountability are passing fads, or they can lead the way in a fundamental reformulation of educational accountability. They can wait for policymakers to develop holistic accountability plans or they can be proactive in exceeding the requirements of prevailing results-based accountability systems and profoundly influence educational policy for the better. If teachers and leaders systematically examine their professional practices and their effect on student achievement, the results of such reflective analysis will finally transform educational accountability from a destructive and unedifying mess to a constructive and transformative force in education. (Contains 1 figure.)