Session Information
23 SES 05 A, Managerial Accountability and its Effects on School Education
Paper Session
Contribution
The governance of education is changing in most OECD countries for the last decades. Like in others fields of public policy, performance-based accountability has become an important model of political regulation of the education system (Broadfoot, 2000; Maroy, Pons, & Dupuy, to be published). Its main objectives are to raise school effectiveness and equity by the external monitoring of student performance and achievement and making schools and teachers more accountable for their results (Carnoy & Loeb, 2002; Maroy, 2009; Osborn, 2006). Accountability is supposed (1) to improve the alignment between policy goals and instructional practices and (2) to enhance schools’ and teachers’ performances (Bovens, 2010; Leithwood & Earl, 2000). Performance-based accountability policies share four common traits (Maroy, 2013): (1) school is conceived as a performative system, (2) objectives of the school system are expressed in quantifiable data (standards and/or achievement targets), (3) external testing tools of pupil achievements assess the outputs, (4) actors of the system are held accountable for these results with various consequences for them. Despite these general similarities, accountability policies are not uniform across the world. They take different forms depending on the political, economic and social context. There exists a variety of tools and rationales, related to different ways of raising the effectiveness and quality of education (Maroy, 2015). Accountability policies can be classified in four main categories depending on “the characteristics of policy tools deployed to implement policies (the degree to which measures are aligned and the implications of accountability for the actors), and two others on the theory of change embedded in policy tools (the conception of the actor targeted by the policy and the theory of change concerning his behavior)”(Maroy & Voisin, 2014): a regulation through strong accountability, a regulation through neo-bureaucratic accountability, a regulation through reflexive responsibilization and accountability, and a regulation through soft accountability.
Today, in most contexts, education actors have to work with accountability policies and tools (e.g., standardized curriculum, standardized testing, school improvement planning). They have to improve their performance using the data created by accountability tools (e.g., results of large-scale assessment, targets of achievement). Nevertheless, research has demonstrated a weak or moderate use of these data by the teachers in their classes. Responding to institutional pressure, they only make minor or symbolic changes in their instructional practice. These findings strengthen “the decoupling argument – that schools respond to pressures from instructional environment by decoupling changes in structures from classroom instruction”(Coburn, 2004, p. 211). The “decoupling” between the political promotion of a regulation by data and their use in the classroom is especially important in contexts of “soft” accountability (low stakes for actors)(Mons & Dupriez, 2010). This has been demonstrated in several empirical researches in France (Pons, 2011), Québec (Lapointe & Brassard, to be published; Maroy , Mathou, & Vaillancourt, to be published), Belgium (Lafontaine, Soussi, & Nidegger, 2009) or Switzerland (Yerly, to be published). For example, teachers may use test formats and contents to align their teaching and assessment practices to the curriculum but seldom use the results of their students for readjust their actions (Yerly, 2014). However, this “decoupling” seems to be weakened in contexts of strong accountability –as recently in USA (Coburn, 2004; Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002).
The aim of this study is to learn more about the social and cognitive reasons or processes producing this decoupling between the data based accountability tools and the instructional practices, specifically in particular accountability systems, excluding high stakes model.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Bovens, M. (2010). Two Concepts of Accountability: Accountability as a Virtue and as a Mechanism. West European Politics, 33(5), 946‑967. Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305–331. Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond Decoupling: Rethinking the Relationship Between the Institutional Environment and the Classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211‑244. Lafontaine, D., Soussi, A., & Nidegger, C. (2009). Évaluations internationales et/ou épreuves nationales : tensions et changement de pratiques. In L. Mottier Lopez & M. Crahay (Dirs.) Évaluations en tension. Entre la régulation des apprentissages et le pilotage des systèmes., p. 61‑80). Bruxelles: De Boeck. Leithwood, K., & Earl, L. (2000). Educational Accountability Effects: An International Perspective. Peabody Journal of Education, 75(4), 1‑18. Maroy, C. (2013). Politiques et outils de « l’école de la performance » : accountability, régulation par les résultats et pilotage. In C. Maroy (éd.), L’école à l’épreuve de la performance. Les politiques de régulation par les résultats (p. 14‑31). Bruxelles: De Boeck. Maroy, C. (2015). Comparing Accountability Policy Tools and Rationales: Various Ways, Various Effects? In Governing Educational Spaces. Knowledge, Teaching, and Learning in Transition (Sense Publishers, p. 35‑66). Rotterdam. Maroy, C., Pons, X., & Dupuy, C. (to be published). Vernacular Globalisations. Accountability in Education Policy in France and Quebec. Journal of Education Policy. Maroy, C., & Voisin, A. (2014). Une typologie des politiques d’accountability en éducation: l’incidence de l’instrumentation et des théories de la régulation. Education comparée - Nouvelle revue, 31‑57. Mons, N., & Dupriez, V. (2010). Les politiques d’accountability. Responsabilisation et formation continue des enseignants. Recherche & formation, n° 65(3), 45‑59. Osborn, M. (2006). Changing the context of teachers’ work and professional development: A European perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 45(4-5), 242–253. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy Implementation and Cognition: Reframing and Refocusing Implementation Research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387‑431. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571‑610. Yerly, G. (2014). Les effets de l’évaluation externe des acquis des élèves sur les pratiques des enseignants. Analyse du regard des enseignants du primaire. Thèse de doctorat en Sciences de l’éducation. Université de Fribourg.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.