Responsibility and Accountability in Institutional Governance

Transcription

1 ECER 2009 Vienna Responsibility and Accountability in Institutional Governance Guri Skedsmo, University of Oslo Kirsten Sivesind, University of Oslo Kari. E. Bachmann, Volda University College

2 Aims To outline an analytical framework to understand the relationship between responsibility and accountability as facets of governance in education This includes analysis of national education policy according to its normative and standardising role, but also institutional responses and reflexive decision-making in school practice To explore how the principals conceptualise and respond to new expectations of current evaluation policy and emerging accountabilities

3 Methodology Research design Mixed approach: combining survey data with group interviews from 11 case studies Comparative design The survey: 540 principals, response rate of 67 percent, national representative study The cases are selected strategically according to background variables (e.g. geographical location, school size, school types), compulsory education (1 st 10 th grade)

4 Methodology Focus Conceptions of reform implementation and change (curriculum, organisation and evaluation) Perceptions of evaluation tools Perceptions of accountability according to new expectations Institutional response and responsiveness

5 Introduction of a national evaluation system The national system of evaluation represents a system change which indicates that governing and control is replaced by trust and confidence that the teacher, the principal and the municipality, defined as the school owner, will know how to initiate good learning processes within the frames of the national curriculum. (White Paper No 30, Culture for Learning , The author s translation)

6 Evaluation tools Tools Screening tests Local tests (summative and formative assessment) Information material National tests The School-leaving Examination and the Craft Certificate International comparative achievement studies Purposes To reveal the needs for support and adapted teaching related to the individual student as well as the schools To reveal the level of student achievement with respect to central subject areas as a basis to help the individual student to improve Material provided by the National Directorate for Education and Training to help teachers, school leaders and municipalities using the system for learning and development purposes To investigate the extent to which students achievements are coherent with the aims of competencies in the national curriculum To inform students, teachers, parents, school leaders, municipalities, regional authorities and national authorities about the level of achievement as a foundation for improving and development Summative evaluation intended to inform the society, employers and education institutions about the achieved level of competency To evaluate and compare the level of achievement of Norwegian students to the level of achievement of students in other countries. To form the basis for policy formulation and to develop national quality indicators (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2005, The author s translation)

7 Responsibility Analytical framework Control Rules Outcomes Content Aims Accountability Development (Afsar, Skedsmo & Sivesind, 2006)

8 Responsibility Conceptions of reform implementation and change Control 4 schools: Rules and regulations Predefined content Bureaucratic 3 schools: Cultural canon Professional cooperation Peer evaluation 1 school: Taxonomies Partnership with external actors Tests 3 schools: Aims of competencies Corporative organisation Local based evaluation Accountability Development (cf. Afsar, Skedsmo & Sivesind, 2006)

9 Principals conceptions of reform implementation and change The priorities (content) in the school dev. plan (B4a) Use of programs/ methods aiming to improve students basic competencies (B4b) Use of programs/ methods directed towards improving the learning environment (e.g. bullying) (B4c) Increased frequency of testing students (B4d) Your work on staff development (B4e) The school s routine for following up results (B4f) % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100 % To a very low degree To a low degree To some degree To a high degree To a very high degree

10 Principals perceptions of evaluation tools Evaluation as an administrative system Internal improvement (school level) External control and legitimisation (municipal level) Improve learning (individual level) Aggregate information (national level) (Skedsmo, Forthcoming 2009)

11 Principals perceptions of accountability That the teaching corresponds to school values (B6a) That the teaching corresponds to professional standards (B6b) That the individual student gets personalized learning opportunities as expected by students and That students learn how to become good citizens acting according to democratic values (B6d) That the students achieve best possible results according to their abilities (B6e) That the school achieve a best possible score on public ranking lists (B6f) % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100 % To a very low degree To a low degree To some degree To a high degree To a very high degree

12 Methodology Conclusions Governance opens up for variations of new forms of organisation and choice of focus / direction Evidence based policy can be seen as an attempt to regulate this variation The use of new tools introduced as part of the national evaluation system can be seen as an administrative system So far, the evaluation system implies soft regulation in terms of increased awareness of aims related to the level student achievements Internal accountability or accountability as moral obligations which is linked to the area of responsibility

13 Thank you for the attention