Accountability Politics

1
Accountability Politics

• Tools for Educational Governance
• IP/Vilnius
• July 7 2010

2
Discourses on accountability policy
Presence Actual
Absence Possible
Communication on accountability policy
3
1980s Decentralisation and goal and framework
management

• School autonomi
• Self management, freedom of disposals
• Responsibility
• Frame management of budgets
• Flexibility in staffing and wage negotiations
• Simplification of regulations
• Management by objectives

4
1990sQuality assurance

• Information on decentralized schools
• Know where the money is going and what it is
  producing (ODay, 2004)
• Evaluations
• Assessments
• Audits
• Tests

5
2000sAccountability at all levels

• Society
• National level Government
• Compulsory national standards/goals
• National tests
• Municipality level Local authorities
• Set goals and frameworks for their schools
  (within the limits of the public school act)
• Monitor the activities of their schools
• Organization
• Principals
• Educational leadership
• Interaction
• Teachers
• Student outcomes
• Students
• Outcomes
• Environment
• Parents, families
• Homework

Jens Rasmussen, Danish School of Education,
University of Aarhus
6

• Input
• Standards
• National goals
• Clear progression
• Guidelines for evaluation

• Output
• National tests

School Black box
7
Rule standards
8
Rule standards
Minimum standards
9
Maximum standards
Rule standards
Minimum standards
10
Maximum standards
Minimum standards
Rule standards
11
Often heard reasons for accountability policy

• USA
• Poverty
• Inequality
• Ethnic diversity
• Achievement gap
• High drop out rates

12
Often heard reasons for accountability policy

• USA
• Poverty
• Inequality
• Ethnic diversity
• Achievement gap
• High drop out rates

• European countries
• Low(er) poverty rate
• Fairly high equality
• Growing ethnic diversity
• Achievement gap
• Low(er) drop out rates

13
PISA 2006
Mathematics
Reading
Finland 548
France 496
Denmark 513
Hungary 491
Austria 505
Italy 462
Lithuania 486
Poland 495
Finland 547
France 488
Denmark 494
Hungary 482
Austria 490
Italy 469
Lithuania 470
Poland 508
14
Percentage of children living below national
poverty lines
The bars show the percentageof children living
in relativepoverty, defined as households with
income below 50 per cent of the national median
income. (UNICEF, 2005)
15
Ethnic diversity in Denmark
16
PISA 2000
17
Reading
Mathematics
18
Reading Naive speakers 2. Generation 1.
Generation
Mathematics Naive speakers 2. Generation 1.
Generation
19
Reasons for introducing accountability systems

• Improve academic learning?
• Relieve centralized management of the educational
  system?
• A fundamental change of the Nordic welfare state
  model?
• Three discourses
• A discourse about improving academic learning
• A discourse about state regulation of
  institutions in society
• A discourse about the welfare state

20
Discourse about academic learning 1

• Government
• Danish students do not perform well in
  international comparative studies like PISA
• PISA showes that every six students leave school
  as a shaky or poor reader
• Today there are four students in each class, who
  never learn to read and write properly
• We need to know at an early stage who will need
  help to become a better reader, or else we risk
  that 16-17 of the students will have major
  difficulties with education beyond compulsory
  school
• All too many students, especially second
  generation immigrants, learn too little to
  benefit from education beyond compulsory school
• Compared to other countries we do not perform
  well. We are indeed not at the same level as the
  countries that perform the best. We have to react
  to that now

21
Discourse on academic learning 2

• Test is a means of detecting weak students in due
  time
• National tests are meant for strengthening the
  social security net under Danish children
• Test is not an end but a means
• Test is for internal use in schools and in
  school/home co-operation
• Test is an educational means for the teachers a
  warning system
• Test is not meant to control teachers, but as a
  tool for teachers to improve gap closing
• Test results are not to be published

22
Discourse on academic learning 3

• The voice against
• Narrowing teaching (to the test)
• Narrowing diversity of education (to what is
  tested)
• Precise goals, detailed criteria, and indicators
  encourage defensive teaching that pay attention
  only to the standards and let everything else out
  of consideration
• Concern
• test results will be published
• league tables will be compiled on the basis of
  test results

23
Tate regulation strategy

• Comparability
• Transparency

24
Change of welfare states as we know them

• Standards as an expression of expectations
• Guarantees
• Higher expectations?
• Additional payment
• Privatization

25
Discourses on accountability
Improving academic learning
State regulation of institutions Changing the
welfare state
Communication on accountability policy