Rethinking accountability in a knowledge society

Abstract

Competition between schools combined with test-based accountability to hold schools accountable for predetermined knowledge standards have become a common solution in educational change efforts to improve the performance of educational systems around the world. This is happening as family and community social capital declines in most parts of developed world. Increased competition and individualism are not necessarily beneficial to creating social capital in schools and their communities. This article argues that: (1) the evidence remains controversial that test-based accountability policies improve the quality and efficiency of public education;(2) the current practice of determining educational performance by using primarily standardized knowledge tests as the main means of accountability is not a necessary condition for much needed educational improvement; and (3) there is growing evidence that increased high-stakes testing is restricting students' conceptual learning, engaging in creative action and understanding innovation, all of which are essential elements of contemporary schooling in a knowledge society. Finland is used as an example to suggest that educational change should rather contribute to increasing networking and social capital in schools and in their communities through building trust and strengthening collective responsibilities within and between schools. This would create better prospects of worthwhile lifelong learning in and out of schools. Based on this analysis, the article concludes that education policies should be directed at promoting more intelligent forms of accountability to meet external accountability demands and to encourage cooperation rather than competition among students, teachers and schools.

Freedom and Constraint in Teacher Education: Reflections on Experiences Over Time

“…Sahlberg (2010) argues that while it is important that teachers and students have clear responsibilities related to their work in schools, it is also important to make a distinction between intelligent and non-intelligent accountability policies (p. 48). There needs to be congruence, Sahlberg (2010) suggests between teaching for a knowledge society that understands the value of thinking, deep learning and innovation and the reforms required from teachers and students (p.47).…”

“…Sahlberg (2010) argues that while it is important that teachers and students have clear responsibilities related to their work in schools, it is also important to make a distinction between intelligent and non-intelligent accountability policies (p. 48). There needs to be congruence, Sahlberg (2010) suggests between teaching for a knowledge society that understands the value of thinking, deep learning and innovation and the reforms required from teachers and students (p.47). Lingard (2009) argues for intelligent accountabilities that do the following: acknowledge the broad purposes of schooling, reject the view that improved results in high stakes tests demonstrate improved schooling and a socially just system, reject the "top-down, one-way gaze upon teachers as the sole source and solution to all schooling problems", recognise the importance of teacher judgement and effective pedagogies as ways to enhance learning for students, and recognise the need to address poverty in order to address inequity in educational outcomes (p. 14).…”

“…Lingard (2009) argues for intelligent accountabilities that do the following: acknowledge the broad purposes of schooling, reject the view that improved results in high stakes tests demonstrate improved schooling and a socially just system, reject the "top-down, one-way gaze upon teachers as the sole source and solution to all schooling problems", recognise the importance of teacher judgement and effective pedagogies as ways to enhance learning for students, and recognise the need to address poverty in order to address inequity in educational outcomes (p. 14). High stakes, test-based accountability systems, Sahlberg (2010) suggests shifts the focus away from worthwhile learning, risk-taking and creativity (p. 55), the sort of learning I encountered in my own experience of teacher education. As we in Australia continue to follow in the footsteps of our US counterparts (Lingard et al, 2016) and move closer to high-stakes performance assessments in teacher education and judging teacher education programs against the impact graduate teachers have on student achievement, we risk moving further away from intelligent forms of accountability.…”

Social Reporting in Italian Public Schools in Theory and Practice

“…This international literature, as we will see below, focused in depth on the issue of school accountability, analyzing in a widespread way test-based accountability systems (Klein et al, 2000;Carnoy et al, 2003;Jacob, 2005). In recent years, however, several authors (O'Neill, 2002;Sahlberg, 2010;O'Neill, 2013), starting from the criticisms of test-based accountability systems, suggest the need to evaluate schools through different types of accountability tools, and in particular through an accountability system that has as its cornerstone the social responsibility of schools. It seems that a new accountability concept is coming to light in which find composition the respect for the general standards of the educational system and the need for the engagement between schools and their stakeholders.…”

“…In the second viewpoint, it is possible to distinguish between a "Standard based accountability" (Loveless et al, 2005;Figlio & Loeb, 2011) and an approach that combines standardized processes with voluntary processes called "Intelligent Accountability" (Sahlberg, 2010;O'Neill, 2013). The first system consists in some reporting and evaluating processes that schools should comply and defined at a central level (Paletta, 2007).…”