Outcome-based accountability regimes in OECD countries: a global policy model?

Abstract

The global diffusion of outcome-based accountability in education is contested, with accounts of universal convergence being challenged by perspectives emphasising heterogeneity across different national or local contexts. This study uses data from PISA to explore, firstly, the spatial and temporal diffusion of accountability across OECD countries, and secondly, whether accountability is implemented as a single coherent regime. Using cluster analysis techniques, we find that most countries fall into a 'Thick' accountability regime, with widespread use of most forms of accountability tools. However, this regime is not fully coherent, with some countries relying more on horizontal, and others on vertical, forms of accountability. A sizeable minority of countries fall into a 'Thin' regime, in which most accountability tools are largely absent. We also find indications of convergence across countries over time. We conclude that while accountability in education is indeed widespread, and increasingly so, it is not a universally dominant regime.

The Challenges and Opportunities of Implementing Montessori Education in the Public Sector

“…The World Bank has promoted increased education accountability and standards since the 1990s, and a 2017 UNESCO report argued that without improved accountability global educational goals will not be met. Högberg and Lindgren (2021) find that the term "accountability" is mentioned more than 500 times in the 2016 OECD publication, Governing Education in a Complex World. These calls for increased accountability have led to policy change in many countries.…”

Comparing teacher autonomy in different models of educational governance

“…Similarly, Högberg and Lindgren (2020) explore the diffusion of accountability across OECD countries by using PISA data. They categorize the countries as those with 'thick horizontal', 'thick vertical', and 'thin accountability'.…”

“…In summary, this article borrows the categories for educational governance models from Verger et al (2019). Accordingly, high-stakes accountability countries have high production of standardized performance data, several forms of evaluation by external parties, and high incentives and sanctions resulting from this evaluation (Högberg & Lindgren, 2020;Verger et al, 2019). Low-stakes accountability countries have almost the same features as high-stakes countries, but they do not have incentives and sanctions resulting from evaluation by external parties (Verger et al, 2019;Wermke & Prøitz, 2019).…”

“…Research literature on educational governance has addressed the influence of the OECD and PISA, finding that national governments have implemented large-scale accountability instruments 'to monitor teachers' performance and promote competitive pressures among schools' (Verger et al, 2019, p. 249). In this educational governance environment, teacher autonomy is challenged by accountability instruments, such as national standards, high-stakes testing, league tables, indicators, inspections, incentives, and sanctions resulting from performance data (Högberg & Lindgren, 2020;Verger et al, 2019).…”

“…However, these countries show differences in their test-based accountability systems. Brazil can be classified as a high-stakes accountability system (Högberg & Lindgren, 2020;Verger et al, 2019) based on its strict accountability measures, such as target setting with bonus payments for schools and teachers that achieve performance targets. Norway can be classified as a low-stakes accountability system (Högberg & Lindgren, 2020;Verger et al, 2019;Wermke & Prøitz, 2019), mainly because testing results are not connected to monetary incentives and sanction mechanisms in relation to teachers' work (Mausethagen, 2013).…”