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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Abelmann, C., & Elmore, R. (1999). When accountability knocks will anyone answer? Philadelphia: Philadelphia Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120. doi:10.1086/228943.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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).

  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.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rangel, E. (2007). Time to learn. AERA Research Points, 5(2).

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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 

Download references

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pasi Sahlberg.

Additional information

The views are those of the author alone and do not necessarily represent those of the European Training Foundation or any of the European Union institutions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sahlberg, P. Rethinking accountability in a knowledge society. J Educ Change 11, 45–61 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-008-9098-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Accountability
  • Educational change
  • High-stakes testing
  • Learning
  • Trust