Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 45–61 | Cite as

Rethinking accountability in a knowledge society

  • Pasi Sahlberg
Article

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.

Keywords

Accountability Educational change High-stakes testing Learning Trust 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Professor Henry Heikkinen and David Oldroyd for their constructive suggestions on this article. However, any lack of clarity, errors and omissions are the author’s responsibility alone.

References

  1. Abelmann, C., & Elmore, R. (1999). When accountability knocks will anyone answer? Philadelphia: Philadelphia Consortium for Policy Research in Education.Google Scholar
  2. Aho, E., Pitkänen, K., & Sahlberg, P. (2006). Policy development and reform principles of basic and secondary education in Finland since 1968. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  3. Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267. doi: 10.3102/0013189X07306523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berry, J., & Sahlberg, P. (2006). Accountability affects the use of small group learning in school mathematics. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 11(1), 5–31.Google Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Carnoy, M., Elmore, R., & Siskin, L. (Eds.). (2003). The new accountability. High schools and high-stakes testing. New York: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  7. Carnoy, M., Gove, A., & Marshall, J. (2007). Cuba’s academic advantage. Why students in Cuba do better in school. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305–331. doi: 10.3102/01623737024004305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120. doi: 10.1086/228943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F., et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  11. Cuban, L. (2007). Hugging in the middle. Teaching in an era of testing and accountability, 1980–2005. Education Policy Analysis Archive, 15(1). Retrieved March 31, 2008, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v15n1/.
  12. Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability. System thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  13. Grubb, N. (2007). Dynamic inequality and intervention: Lessons for a small country. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 105–114.Google Scholar
  14. Hamilton, L., Stecher, B., & Klein, S. (Eds.). (2002). Making sense of test-based account-ability in education. Santa Monica: RAND.Google Scholar
  15. Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society. Education in the age of insecurity. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hargreaves, A. (2008). The fourth way of change: Towards an age of inspiration and sustainability. In A. Hargreaves & M. Fullan (Eds.), Change wars (pp. 11–44). Toronto: Solution Tree.Google Scholar
  17. Hargreaves, A., Halasz, G., & Pont, B. (2008). The Finnish approach to system leadership. In B. Pont, D. Nusche, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Improving school leadership, volume 2: Case studies on system leadership (pp. 69–109). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  18. Itkonen, T., & Jahnukainen, M. (2007). An analysis of accountability policies in Finland and the United States. International Journal of Disability Development and Education, 54(1), 5–23. doi: 10.1080/10349120601149664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jaafar, S., & Anderson, S. (2007). Policy trends and tensions in accountability for educational management and services in Canada. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53(2), 207–227.Google Scholar
  20. Jones, M., Jones, B., & Hargrove, T. (2003). The unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  21. Ladd, H., & Fiske, E. (2003). Does competition improve teaching and learning? Evidence from New Zealand. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(1), 97–112. doi: 10.3102/01623737025001095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Laukkanen, R. (1998). Accountability and evaluation: Decision-making structures and the utilization of evaluation in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 42(2), 123–133. doi: 10.1080/0031383980420202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Laukkanen, R. (2008). Finnish strategy for high-level education for all. In N. C. Soguel & P. Jaccard (Eds.), Governance and performance of education systems (pp. 305–324). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Levin, B., & Fullan, M. (2008). Learning about system renewal. Educational management. Administration and Leadership, 36(2), 289–303. doi: 10.1177/1741143207087778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Loeb, H., Knapp, M., & Elfers, A. (2008). Teachers’ response to standards-based reform: Probing reform assumptions in Washington State. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 16(9). Retrieved May 1, 2008, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v16n9/.
  26. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. McNeil, L., Coppola, E., Radigan, J., & Vasquez Heilig, J. (2008). Avoidable losses: High-stakes accountability and the dropout crisis. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 16(3). Retrieved May 1, 2008, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v16n3/.
  29. Møller, J. (2009). School leadership in an age of accountability: Tensions between managerial and professional accountability. Journal of Educational Change, 10(1) (pages not available).Google Scholar
  30. Nichols, S., & Berliner, D. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  31. O’Neill, O. (2002). A question of trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. OECD. (2001). Knowledge and skills for life: First results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. OECD. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world. First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  34. OECD. (2007). PISA 2006. Science competencies for tomorrow’s world, Volume 1. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  35. OECD. (2008). Trends shaping education. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  36. Peters, R. S. (1983). The concept of education. London: Routledge Kagan & Paul.Google Scholar
  37. Popham, J. (2007). The no-win accountability game. In C. Glickman (Ed.), Letters to the next President. What we can do about the real crisis in public education (pp. 166–173). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  38. Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78. doi: 10.1353/jod.1995.0002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rangel, E. (2007). Time to learn. AERA Research Points, 5(2).Google Scholar
  40. Rees, M. (2003). Our final century. London: William Heinemenn.Google Scholar
  41. Sachs, J. (2008). Common wealth. Economics for a crowded planet. New York: The Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  42. Sacks, P. (2001). Standardized minds: The high price of America’s testing culture and what we can do to change it. New York: Perseus Publishing.Google Scholar
  43. Sahlberg, P. (2006). Education reform for raising economic competitiveness. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 259–287. doi: 10.1007/s10833-005-4884-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sahlberg, P. (2007). Education policies for raising student learning: The Finnish approach. Journal of Education Policy, 22(2), 147–171. doi: 10.1080/02680930601158919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sahlberg, P. (2009). Educational change in Finland. In A. Hargreaves, M. Fullan, A. Lieberman, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (2nd ed.). New York: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  46. Sarason, S. (1990). The unpredictable failure of educational reform. Can we change the course before it’s too late?. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  47. Sarason, S. (2004). And what do you mean by learning?. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  48. Schleicher, A. (2006). The economics of knowledge: Why education is key for Europe’s success. Brussels: The Lisbon Council.Google Scholar
  49. Secondary Heads Association. (2003). Towards intelligent accountability for schools: A policy statement on school accountability. Policy Paper 5. Leicester: Secondary Heads Association.Google Scholar
  50. Sharan, S., & Chin Tan, I. (2008). Organizing schools for productive learning. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shirley, D. (2008). All communities left behind? How new school accountability and performance regimes undermine sustainable civic capacity in recent US reforms? Paper presented at AERA Annual Meeting, March 28, New York City.Google Scholar
  52. Simola, H. (2005). The Finnish miracle of PISA: Historical and sociological remarks on teaching and teacher education. Comparative Education, 41(4), 455–470. doi: 10.1080/03050060500317810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Teacher Magazine. (2008). Teacher suspended for refusing to give state test. Teacher Magazine. Retrieved April 22, 2008, from http://www.teachermagazine.org/tm/articles/2008/04/22/notest_ap.h19.html.
  54. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). Becoming a trustworthy leader. In The Jossey-Bass reader on educational leadership (pp. 99–113). San Francisco: Wiley.Google Scholar
  55. Wössmann, L., Lüdemann, E., Schütz, G., & West, M. (2007). School accountability, autonomy and choice, and the level of student achievement: International evidence from PISA 2003. Education Working Paper No. 13. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.European Training FoundationTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations