With the current demands for greater accountability, schools must often choose between short-term responses that lead to improved scores or longer-term efforts to build student achievement and ensure quality teaching. This paper considers ways in which the arguments on either side of this issue manifest themselves in particular schools. The emphasis is on context, the specifics that give meaning to data. For 4 years, a school-leader preparation program has been examined which has been undergoing major reforms to align with state and national standards, including the implementation of a national licensure exam. A naturalistic inquiry was designed to rely heavily on the students' opinions as one measure of the impact of program reform. Concerns about accountability systems permeated responses from students, interns, graduates, and practicing principals. Many specific concerns were related to scores that were misinterpreted by principals and parents. Other problems were related to the emphasis on raising scores for a building over helping students who most need help. Faced with the pressures of high-stakes accountability, schools hope to find a quick fix to problems that may require long-term investments in skills and resources that offer a greater chance of fundamental gains over time. (Contains 34 references.) (RKJ)