High autonomy and low accountability: Case study of five Czech schools
Bd.24,Nr.6(2014)
ENGLISH ISSUE
The paper aims to describe the effects of a unique combination of high autonomy and low outcome accountability of the Czech schools. First, the paper outlines test-based accountability as a key concept of contemporary educational policy. Next, the research design is briefly described and the qualitative data on the effects of school choice and curriculum autonomy / decentralisation are presented. The discussion stresses the problem of time frame in evaluating system wide interventions and also sketches a vision of new emerging school reform discourse. Processes of change in five Czech “combined” primary and lower secondary schools were studied by qualitative longitudinal multiple case study for over 5 years. Surprisingly, the results suggest that many negative effects ascribed to the highstakes tests (e. g. curriculum narrowing, fabrication of image) could be seen in the studied schools despite the different model of governance in the Czech Republic. The contemporary discussion of risks of (high stake) testing should be complemented by a similar analysis of both costs and negative effects of the absence of outcome accountability.
school improvement; educational reform; transition; Czech Republic; multiple case study
Ball, S. J. (2000). Performativities and fabrications in the education economy: Towards the performative society? Australian Educational Researcher, 27(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03219719
Bellman, J., & Weiß, M. (2009). Risiken und Nebenwirkungen neuer Steuerung im Schulsystem. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 55(2), 286–308.
Bruns, B., Filmer, D., & Petrinos, H. A. (2011). Making schools work. New evidence on accountability reforms. Washington: World Bank.
Chua, J. S. M. (2009). Saving the teacher’s soul: exorcising the terrors of performativity. London Review of Education, 7(2), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460902990344
de Wolf, I. F., & Janssens, F. J. G. (2007). Effects and side effects of inspections and accountability in education: An overview of empirical studies. Oxford Review of Education, 33(3), 379–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980701366207
Dvořák, D., Starý, K., Urbánek, P., Chvál, M., & Walterová, E. (2010). Česká základní škola: Vícepřípadová studie. Praha: Karolinum.
Eurydice. (2009). National testing of pupils in Europe: Objectives, organisation and use of results. Brussels: Eurydice.
Fullan, M. (2005, Winter). Tri-level solution. Education Analyst, 4–5.
Greger, D. (2011). Dvacet let českého školství optikou teorií změny vzdělávání v postsocialistických zemích. Orbis scholae, 5(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2018.70
Hopkins, D. (2010). Every school a great school – Realizing the potential of system leadership. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change (pp. 741–764). Heidelberg: Springer.
Hopkins, D. (2013). Exploding the myths of school reform. Centre for Strategic Education Seminar Series Paper No. 224. East Melbourne: Centre for Strategic Education.
Janík, T. (2013). Od reformy kurikula k produktivní kultuře vyučování a učení. Pedagogická orientace, 23(5), 634–663. https://doi.org/10.5817/PedOr2013-5-634
Janík, T., Knecht, P., Najvar, P., Píšová, M., & Slavík, J. (2011). Kurikulární reforma na gymnáziích: výzkumná zjištění a doporučení. Pedagogická orientace, 21(4), 375–415.
Kaščák, O., & Pupala, B. (2012). Critical issues in contemporary education: Prolegomena. Human Affairs, 22(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.2478/s13374-012-0001-8
Kaščák, O., & Pupala, B. (2011). PISA v kritickej perspektíve. Orbis Scholae, 5(1), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2018.74
Klieme, E., et al. (2004). The development of national educational standards. Berlin: BMBF.
McKinsey & Co. (2010). Klesající výsledky českého základního a středního školství: fakta a řešení. Praha.
Moree, D. (2013). Učitelé na vlnách transformace. Kultura školy před rokem 1989 a po něm. Praha: Karolinum.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in mathematics. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
Neumann, K., Fischer, H. E., & Kauertz, A. (2010). From PISA to educational standards: The impact of large-scale assessments on science education in Germany. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(3), 545–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9206-7
OECD. (2011a). Lessons from PISA for the United States: Strong performers and successful reformers in education. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2011b). School autonomy and accountability: Are they related to student performance? PISA in focus 9 (October). Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2013a). PISA 2012 Results: What students know and can do – student performance in mathematics, reading and science (Volume I). Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2013b). PISA 2012 results: Ready to learn: students’ engagement, drive and self-beliefs (Volume III). Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2013c). PISA 2012 results: What makes schools successful? Resources, policies and practices. (Volume IV). Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2014). TALIS 2013 results: An international perspective on teaching and learning. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Píšová, M., Kostková, K., Janík, T., Doulík, P., Hajdušková, L., Knecht, P., … & Vlček, P. (2011). Kurikulární reforma na gymnáziích. Případové studie tvorby kurikula. Praha: VÚP.
Pritchett, L. (2013). The World Bank and public sector management: What next? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 79(3), 413–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852313491362
Pritchett, L., Woolcock, M., & Andrew, M. (2010). Capability traps? The mechanisms of persistent implementation failure. CGD Working Paper 234. Washington: Center for Global Development.
Spillane, J. P. (2012). The more things change, the more things stay the same? Education and Urban Society, 44(2), 123–127.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Multiple case study analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
Straková, J. (2010). Postoje českých učitelů k hlavním prioritám vzdělávací politiky. In H. Krykorková & R. Váňová (Eds.), Učitel v současné škole (pp. 167–175). Praha: FF UK.
Straková, J. (2013). Jak dál s kurikulární reformou. Pedagogická orientace, 23(5), 734–743. https://doi.org/10.5817/PedOr2013-5-734
Straková, J., Spilková, V., Simonová, J., Friedleandaerová, H., & Hanzák, T. (2013). Názory učitelů základních škol na potřebu změn ve školním vzdělávání. Orbis Scholae, 7(1), 79–100.
Šíp, R. (2013). Nové paradigma vědy, nové paradigma vědeckého výzkumu. In L. Gulová & R. Šíp (Eds.), Výzkumné metody v pedagogické praxi (pp. 12–37). Praha: Grada.
Štech, S. (2011). PISA – nástroj vzdělávací politiky nebo výzkumná metoda? Orbis Scholae, 5(1), 123–133. https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2018.81
Tamir, P. (2004). Curriculum implementation revisited. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(3), 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000058153
Tetlock, P. E., Vieider, F M., Patil, S. V., & Grant, A. M. (2013). Accountability and ideology: When left looks right and right looks left. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(1), 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.03.007
Unesco. (2007). Education for all by 2015: Will we make it? Paris: author.
Viñao, A. (2001, Fall). Do education reforms fail? A historian’s response. Encounters on Education, 2, 27–47.
Walterová, E., Černý, K., Greger, D., & Chvál, M. (2010). Školství – věc (ne)veřejná? Názory veřejnosti na školu a vzdělávání. Praha: Karolinum.
West, M. R., & P. E. Peterson. (2006). The efficacy of choice threats within accountability systems: Results from legislatively induced experiments. The Economic Journal, 116(March), C46–C62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2006.01075.x
Dieses Werk steht unter der Lizenz Creative Commons Namensnennung - Nicht-kommerziell - Keine Bearbeitungen 4.0 International.
Copyright (c) 2015 Dominik Dvořák, Petr Urbánek, Karel Starý