Advertisement

Accountability implications of the OECD’s economistic approach to education: A historical case analysis

  • Christian YdesenEmail author
  • Anna Bomholt
Article

Abstract

Using Australia as a case, it is the purpose of this article to historically investigate the implications of the OECD’s economistic approach to education in terms of accountability in order to add more clarity and body to the concept of intelligent accountability proposed by the British philosopher Onora O’Neill. Such a historical prism offers the opportunity to illuminate past experiences and debates which can then be used as vehicles for gaining insights into the pitfalls and opportunities in terms of accountability in education. The empirical documents under investigation stems from the OECD archive in Paris as well as the national archives of Australia. The material has been selected from a database of OECD archival documents consisting of some 1908 documents on various programmes and activities in education in the period 1961 to 2015. The search criteria in the database has been that ‘accountability’ and ‘Australia’ should occur in the document which has generated some 165 documents. The article argues that a clear distinction can be drawn between accountability to the local stakeholders with the purpose of creating transparency and best practices in terms of running a school in a community versus accountability for external purposes like measuring the performance level of a nation’s labour force, ranking schools, school districts and/or nations against each other. In this light, the article identifies a need for a ‘co-creation’ approach to the development of accountability practices which can serve to establish a fair balance between input and output focus.

Keywords

OECD Accountability History of education Australia Economization 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research and production of this article was made possible by Rector’s Research Talent Development Programme, Aalborg University, Denmark.

References

  1. Alexander, T. J. (1994a). Organisation for economic cooperation and development. Education activities. In T. Husén & N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, T. J. (1994b). Introductory address. In A. Tuijnman & N. Bottani (Eds.), Making education count: Developing and using international indicators. Paris, Washington, DC: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; OECD Publications and Information Centre.Google Scholar
  3. Auld, E., & Morris, P. (2014). Comparative education, the “New Paradigm” and policy borrowing: Constructing knowledge for educational reform. Comparative Education,50(2), 129–155.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2013.826497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Auld, E., & Morris, P. (2016). PISA, policy and persuasion: Translating complex conditions into education “best practice”. Comparative Education,52(2), 202–229.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2016.1143278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Australian Government Publishing Service. (1973). Schools for Australia. Canberra: Department of Education.Google Scholar
  6. Australian Government Publishing Service. (1975). OECD activities in education. Canberra: Department of Education.Google Scholar
  7. Bray, M., & Varghese, N. V. (2011). Directions in educational planning: International experiences and perspectives. Paris: Unesco Pub.: International Institute for Educational Planning.Google Scholar
  8. Bürgi, R. (2015). Geplante Bildung für die freie Welt: Die OECD und die Entstehung einer technokratischen Bildungsexpertise. PhD diss., University of Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  9. Bürgi, R. (2016). Systemic management of schools: The OECD’s professionalisation and dissemination of output governance in the 1960s. Paedagogica Historica,52(4), 408–422.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230.2016.1178780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burke, J. C. (2005). The many faces of accountability. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), Achieving accountability in higher education—Balancing public, academic and market demands (pp. 1–24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  11. Burns, T., Köster, F., & Fuster, M. (2016). Education governance in action: Lessons from case studies. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264262829-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carroll, P. G. H., & Kellow, A. J. (2012). Fifty years of the OECD and Forty years of Australian membership. Australian Journal of Politics and History,58(4), 512–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cochran-Smith, M., Carney, M. C., Keefe, E. S., Burton, S., Chang, W.-C., Fernandez, M. B., et al. (2018). Reclaiming accountability in teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cracolici, M. F., Cuffaro, M., & Nijkamp, P. (2010). The measurement of economic, social and environmental performance of countries: A novel approach. Social Indicators Research,95, 339–356.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9464-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Desrosières, A. (1998). The politics of large numbers: A history of statistical reasoning. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dorn, S. (2007). Accountability Frankenstein: Understanding and taming the monster. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub.Google Scholar
  17. Elvin, H. L. (1961). Education and economic growth. OECD conference Washington, DC, October 1961. International Review of Education 7(4), 484–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: The PISA “effect” in Europe. Journal of Education Policy,24(1), 23–37.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930802412669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grek, S., & Ydesen, C. (2020). Paving the Way for PISA—The OECD’s International Education Indicators Project (INES). Journal of Education Policy (Forthcoming).Google Scholar
  20. Grey, S., & Morris, P. (2018). PISA: Multiple “truths” and mediatised global governance. Comparative Education,54(2), 109–131.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2018.1425243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanushek, E. A. (2013). Endangering prosperity: A global view of the American school. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2015). The knowledge capital of nations: Education and the economics of growth. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Henry, M., Lingard, B., Rizvi, F., & Taylor, S. (2001). The OECD, globalisation and education policy. London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hursh, D. (2005). Neo-liberalism, markets and accountability: Transforming education and undermining democracy in the United States and England. Policy Futures in Education,3(1), 3–15.  https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2005.3.1.6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnston, N. (1991). Foreword. In J. Chapman, L. Angus, G. Burke, & V. Wilkinson (Eds.), Improving the quality of Australian schools. Hawthorn, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  26. Kallo, J. (2018). Shared meanings and divergent views: The formation of the OECD agenda for higher education. Paper presented at the European Conferrence for Educational Research, Bolzano.Google Scholar
  27. Lindblad, S., Pettersson, D., & Popkewitz, T. S. (2015). International comparisons of school results: A systematic review of research on large scale assessments in education. In A report from the educational research project SKOLFORSK. Stockholm: Swedish Research Council.Google Scholar
  28. Lingard, B., & Sellar, S. (2016). The changing organizational and global significance of the OECD’s education work. In K. Mundy, A. Green, B. Lingard & A. Verger (Eds.), The handbook of global education policy (pp. 357–373). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Locke, J. (1695/2000). Some thoughts concerning education, hrsg. Yolton, John W./Yolton, Jean S. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lyons, R. (1964). The OECD mediterranean regional project. The American Economist,8(2), 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martens, K., & Niemann, D. (2010). Governance by comparison: How ratings & rankings impact national policy-making in education (TranState working papers no. 139). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10419/41595.
  32. Morgan, C. (2009). The OECD programme for international student assessment: Unravelling a knowledge network. Saarbrucken: VDM Verlag Dr. Muller.Google Scholar
  33. Morgan, C. (2011). Constructing the OECD programme for international student assessment. In M. A. Pereyra, H.-G. Kotthoff, & R. Cowen (Eds.), Pisa under examination (pp. 47–59). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morris, P. (2016). Education policy, cross-national tests of pupil achievement, and the pursuit of world-class schooling: A critical analysis. London: UCL Institute of Education Press.Google Scholar
  35. Nóvoa, A., & Yariv-Mashal, T. (2003). Comparative research in education: A mode of governance or a historical journey? Comparative Education,39(4), 423–438.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0305006032000162002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. O’Neill, O. (2002). A question of trust: The BBC Reith lectures 2002. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. O’Neill, O. (2004). Accountability, trust and informed consent in medical practice and research. Clinical Medicine,4(3), 269–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. O’Neill, O. (2013). Intelligent accountability in education. Oxford Review of Education,39(1), 4–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. OECD. (1961). Policy conference on economic growth and investment in education: Washington, 16th–20th October 1961. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  40. OECD. (2011). School autonomy and accountability: Are they related to student performance?. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  41. OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results (volume II): Policies and practices for successful schools. Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. OEEC. (1960). Forecasting manpower needs for the age of science. Paris: OEEC Publications.Google Scholar
  43. Papadopoulos, G. S. (1994). Education 1960–1990: The OECD perspective. Paris, Washington, DC: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ; OECD Publications and Information Centre.Google Scholar
  44. Pusey, M. (1991). Economic rationalism in Canberra: A nation-building state changes its mind. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. London, New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Smith, W. C. (2014). The global transformation toward testing for accountability. Education Policy Analysis Archives.  https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22.1571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith, W. C. (Ed.). (2016). The global testing culture: shaping education policy, perceptions, and practice. Oxford: Symposium Books.Google Scholar
  48. Spring, J. H. (2015). Economization of education: Human capital, global corporations, skills-based schooling. New York, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stobart, G. (2008). Testing times: The uses and abuses of assessment. London, New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Supovitz, J. (2009). Can high stakes testing leverage educational improvement? Prospects from the last decade of testing and accountability reform. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2), 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tröhler, D. (2011). The global language on education policy and prospects of education research. In D. Tröhler & R. Barbu (Eds.), Education systems in historical, cultural, and sociological perspectives. Rotterdam: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tröhler, Daniel. (2014). Change management in the governance of schooling: The rise of experts, planners, and statistics in the early OECD. Teachers College Record,116, 1–26.Google Scholar
  53. Tröhler, D. (2015). The medicalization of current educational research and its effects on education policy and school reforms. Discourse Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education,36(5), 749–764.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2014.942957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. UNESCO. (2017). Global education monitoring report: Accountability in education. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  55. Verger, A., Fontdevila, C., & Parcerisa, L. (2020). The constitution of school autonomy with accountability as a global policy model: A focus on OECD’s governance mechanisms. In C. Ydesen (Ed.), The OECD’s historical rise in education: The formation of a global governing complex. Global histories of education. London & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  56. Vickers, M. (1994). Cross-national exchange, the OECD, and Australian education policy. Knowledge and Policy,7(1), 25–47.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02692814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. West, A., Mattei, P., & Roberts, J. (2011). Accountability and sanctions in English schools. British Journal of Educational Studies,59(1), 41–62.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2010.529416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ydesen, C. (2013). Educational testing as an accountability measure: Drawing on twentieth-century Danish history of education experiences. Paedagogica Historica,49(5), 716–733.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230.2013.815235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ydesen, C., & Grek, S. (2019). Securing organisational survival: A historical inquiry into the OECD’s work in education during the 1960s. Paedagogica Historica.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230.2019.1604774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zou, Y. (2020). OECD and educational policy in China. In C. Ydesen (Ed.), The OECD’s historical rise in education: The formation of a global governing complex. Global histories of education. London & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Culture and LearningAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations