Accountability Politics

1. Accountability Politics Tools for Educational Governance IP/Vilnius July 7 2010 Jens Rasmussen, Danish School of Education, University of Aarhus

2. Discourses on accountability policy Presence Actual Absence Possible Communication on accountability policy Jens Rasmussen, Danish School of Education, University of Aarhus

3. 1980s Decentralisation and goal and framework management • School autonomi • Self management, freedom of disposals • Responsibility • Frame management of budgets • Flexibility in staffing and wage negotiations • Simplification of regulations • Management by objectives Jens Rasmussen, Danish School of Education, University of Aarhus

4. 1990sQuality assurance • Information on decentralized schools • ”Know where the money is going and what it is producing” (O’Day, 2004) • Evaluations • Assessments • Audits • Tests Jens Rasmussen, Danish School of Education, University of Aarhus

5. 2000sAccountability at all levels • Society • National level: Government • Compulsory national standards/goals • National tests • Municipality level: Local authorities • Set goals and frameworks for their schools (within the limits of the public school act) • Monitor the activities of their schools • Organization • Principals • Educational leadership • Interaction • Teachers • Student outcomes • Students • Outcomes • Environment • Parents, families • Homework Jens Rasmussen, Danish School of Education, University of Aarhus

6. Input • Standards • National goals • Clear progression • Guidelines for evaluation • Output • National tests School Black box Jens Rasmussen, Danish School of Education, University of Aarhus

7. Rule standards

8. Rule standards Minimum standards

9. Maximum standards Rule standards Minimum standards

10. Minimum standards Rule standards Maximum standards

11. USA Poverty Inequality Ethnic diversity Achievement gap High drop out rates Often heard reasons for accountability policy Jens Rasmussen, Danish School of Education, University of Aarhus

12. USA Poverty Inequality Ethnic diversity Achievement gap High drop out rates European countries Low(er) poverty rate Fairly high equality Growing ethnic diversity Achievement gap Low(er) drop out rates Often heard reasons for accountability policy Jens Rasmussen, Danish School of Education, University of Aarhus

13. PISA 2006 Mathematics Reading Jens Rasmussen, Danish School of Education, University of Aarhus

14. Percentage of children living below national poverty lines The bars show the percentageof children living in ‘relative’poverty, defined as householdswith income below 50 per centof the national median income. (UNICEF, 2005) Jens Rasmussen, Danish School of Education, University of Aarhus

15. Ethnic diversity in Denmark Jens Rasmussen, Danish School of Education, University of Aarhus

16. PISA 2000 Jens Rasmussen, Danish School of Education, University of Aarhus

17. Reading Mathematics Jens Rasmussen, Danish School of Education, University of Aarhus

18. Reading Naive speakers 2. Generation 1. Generation Mathematics Naive speakers 2. Generation 1. Generation Jens Rasmussen, Danish School of Education, University of Aarhus

19. Reasons for introducing accountability systems • Improve academic learning? • Relieve centralized management of the educational system? • A fundamental change of the Nordic welfare state model? Three discourses: • A discourse about improving academic learning • A discourse about state regulation of institutions in society • A discourse about the welfare state Jens Rasmussen, Danish School of Education, University of Aarhus

20. Discourse about academic learning 1 Government • Danish students do not perform well in international comparative studies like PISA • PISA showes that every six students leave school as a shaky or poor reader • Today there are four students in each class, who never learn to read and write properly • We need to know at an early stage who will need help to become a better reader, or else we risk that 16-17% of the students will have major difficulties with education beyond compulsory school • All too many students, especially second generation immigrants, learn too little to benefit from education beyond compulsory school • Compared to other countries we do not perform well. We are indeed not at the same level as the countries that perform the best. We have to react to that now Jens Rasmussen, Danish School of Education, University of Aarhus

21. Discourse on academic learning 2 • Test is a means of detecting weak students in due time • National tests are meant for strengthening the social security net under Danish children • Test is not an end but a means • Test is for internal use in schools and in school/home co-operation • Test is an educational means for the teachers – a warning system • Test is not meant to control teachers, but as a tool for teachers to improve gap closing • Test results are not to be published Jens Rasmussen, Danish School of Education, University of Aarhus

22. Discourse on academic learning 3 The voice against • Narrowing teaching (to the test) • Narrowing diversity of education (to what is tested) • Precise goals, detailed criteria, and indicators encourage defensive teaching – that pay attention only to the standards and let everything else out of consideration • Concern • test results will be published • league tables will be compiled on the basis of test results Jens Rasmussen, Danish School of Education, University of Aarhus

23. Tate regulation strategy Comparability Transparency Jens Rasmussen, Danish School of Education, University of Aarhus

24. Change of welfare states – as we know them • Standards as an expression of expectations • Guarantees • Higher expectations? • Additional payment • Privatization Jens Rasmussen, Danish School of Education, University of Aarhus

25. Discourses on accountability Improving academic learning State regulation of institutions Changing the welfare state Communication on accountability policy Jens Rasmussen, Danish School of Education, University of Aarhus