Since more than two decades, the international influence of New Public Management has become increasingly visible in the Dutch public sector, more specifically in higher and vocational education. While central government wants to be more accountable towards its citizens, (semi)-public organisations have to present the results of their activities towards their clients. Management on the basis of rules and procedures has been gradually replaced by management based on performances and more decentralised decision-making authority. In other words, schools have to show e.g. their examination results and drop out percentages.Internationally, educational systems are increasingly organised on the basis of the principles of performance management. In general, two models can be distinguished, the Rechtsstaat model, which is based on the state as an integrative force and often involves a bureaucratic culture. This model is typical for Germany and France. The second is the 'public interest' model, were the state is considered an unavoidable necessity with limited decision-making power, typical for the United Kingdom, Australia and New-Zeeland. While in the Rechtsstaat performance management evolved slowly, it gained easily wider recognition in countries using a public interest model. Other countries, such as The Netherlands, Finland and Sweden maintain a mixed model. We have discovered examples of performance management in the United Kingdom (the 'best value' programme, performance management in primary and secondary education, school achievement awards), the United States (Government Performance and Results Act) and Australia ('Outcomes and Outputs framework'). However, evaluative studies of the effects of such measures are still scarce in supply. Performance based management is far from simple in the public sector, as it can easily lead to unintended or undesirable outcomes such as strategic behaviour, for example the exclusion of certain groups of students. A major difficulty for performance measurement is that public services have usually a multi-value character, instead of a single value and can therefor not be limited to one dimension. In addition, negative sanctions as a consequence of performance management will almost automatically lead towards dysfunctional behaviour. A third difficulty is that the transaction costs are high, because accurate and effective measurement of performances is time-consuming and expensive; this is also called 'the burden of accountability'.On the basis of our international comparative study can be concluded that performance management can be very useful, as long as certain conditions are taken into account. If the multi-value character of public activities is recognised and attention is paid to the process and input variables, as well as output and outcomes, dysfunctional effects can be reduced. Other conditions involve support from the management and involvement of employees in the choice of performance- indicators, evaluation of outcomes and the choice of other activities. Such a dialogue can increase the interests of clients and employees behind the data and avoid that performance measurement becomes a goal by itself.