Interrelations between policymakers’ intentions and school agents’ interpretation of accountability policy in Israel

Abstract

The study examined the interrelations between policymakers' intentions for test-based accountability policy, and school agents' perceptions and actions with regard to this policy. Mixedmethods were used and encompassed 24 policymakers, 80 school principals, 168 teachers and case studies of four schools. New institutional theory, including the concept of "environmental shift" (Powell & Di Maggio, 1991) and the metaphor of "coupling" (Weick, 1976), served as the conceptual framework. Findings indicate that the interrelations between intentions, perceptions and actions are mainly tightly coupled. These are discussed by invoking three types of institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983): coercive, mimetic and normative.

Responding to external accountability in high‐performing, high‐capacity public secondary schools in Chile

“…School principals, as local policy implementers are key to shaping organisational responses to external accountability (Amdur & Mero‐Jaffe, 2017; Elmore & Fuhrman, 2001; Knapp & Feldman, 2012). At the organisational level, principals may allocate resources according to external assessment demands, monitor teachers' work and results, analyse assessment results with teachers, support professional learning, and provide resources for remedial instruction for students not meeting expectations.…”

“…Teachers' actions are critical in shaping the use of assessment‐based accountability as a school improvement tool (Amdur & Mero‐Jaffe, 2017; Hamilton et al, 2002). For example, when teachers use accountability to strengthen curriculum alignment to enable them to work more effectively.…”

“…Responses to performance‐based accountability policies are mediated by the school's performance, internal capacities, resources, and how the principal shapes the use of accountability information (Amdur & Mero‐Jaffe, 2017; Falabella, 2014; Mintrop & Trujillo, 2007; Parcerisa, 2021). Practitioners may not respond to performance incentives if they do not value them, distrust the assessment system, or lack the instructional capacities needed to improve (Ehren, 2022; Figlio & Loeb, 2011).…”