In the context of global education, the notion of 'governing by numbers' is spreading and becoming dominated in many countries (Verger et al, 2019). Policymakers and government officials believe that numerical evidences of student performance drawn from standardised, comprehensive and reliable large-scale assessments may lead schools to conduct data-informed decision-making procedures as a way to support their improvement efforts of educational programs and pedagogical practices (Johansson, 2016; Klinger & Rogers, 2011). Accordingly, the use of national large-scale assessments (NLSA) is increasingly become common feature of many educational systems (Fischman et al., 2019; Verger et al, 2019).

NLSAs are structured around three core policy principles: setting standards, decentralization and school accountability (Verger et al., 2019). These tests define central criteria of quality learning that are organized as measurable standards of key curricular subjects (Smith, 2016). Governmental decentralization policies increased school autonomy, but at the same time, the implementation of NLSA is used in order to 'steer at a distance' (Verger et al., 2019). Moreover, school accountability is embedded with the notion that principals and teachers are responsible for school policy and actions, as well as for their students' performances, and therefore should be responsive for the tests results aimed at improvement purposes (Copp, 2019; Johansson, 2016).

The implementation of the NLSA in many countries was accompanied by an extensive public debate, dealing with its purposes, relevance and consequences (Johansson, 2016; Verger et al, 2019). Little debate was carried out on its pedagogical implementation at school level. This issue was hardly discussed in the professional literature, even though teachers and principals continuously raise their voices against standardized large-scale assessments, criticizing its negative influence on school curriculum, pedagogy and climate (DeLuca at al. 2018; Klinger & Rogers, 2011). Previous evidences show that school leaders and teachers believe that the NLSA's summative purposes are an inadequate tool for understanding educational outcomes, and including formative assessment is vital to increasing their validity (Black & Wiliam, 2018; Shepard & Penuel, 2018). Additionally, Copp’s (2019) mixed-methods study of the Canadian education system showed that teachers support policy steps that enable the generation of big datasets for macro evaluation, but they do not believe that these databases are well-situated for the improvement of classroom teaching on the individual level.

Drawing from the institutional theory, the current study intends to examine school decisions and actions following the NLSAs. The study focuses on the pedagogical dimension of these tests, emphasizing teachers' uses of the NLSAs results as a policy tool for making a pedagogical change. According to the institutional theory, in complex situations, institutions need to comply with environmental expectations and consequently make compromises in order to remain legitimate (Meyer & Rowan, 1978; Oliver, 1991). Therefore, schools may adopt rational-sounding initiatives as a way signaling effectiveness, even though these actions do not support school agenda, values or pedagogical principles (Peurach et al., 2018; Yurkofsky, 2021). Studiesindicate that test direct preparation was the most frequent strategy adapted by schools as a pedagogical practice following the pressure to achieve high scores (Camphuijsen et al, 2021; Saeki et al., 2018). Reducing instructional time in favour of test preparation activities were perceived by teachers as detrimental to students’ learning, as it narrowing learning development, reducing curriculum boundaries and limiting school pedagogical improvements (Klinger and Rogers, 2010). Nevertheless, this strategy may serve as a mean to ensure school legitimization.

Research Questions

1. How do schools use the NLSAs as a policy tool for making a pedagogical change?
2. How do teachers perceive the NLSAs tests, and to what extant are these perceptions correlated with their tendency to implement pedagogical changes?

Context: The paper presents the case of the Israeli NLSA regime. Following the global ideologists of accountability, in 2002 the Israeli educational authorities have introduced a new testing regime – the Meitzav. The purpose of the Meitzav (Hebrew acronym for ‘Growth and Effectiveness Measures for Schools’) tests is ‘assessment for learning’, meaning providing a working tool for planning school pedagogical objectives and activities and promoting learning and instruction, all based on objective information. The Meitzav tests are administered in the second, fifth and eighth grades every three years. They cover four subjects: language literacy, mathematics, English (the main foreign language taught in Israel) and science, plus a questionnaire on school climate and several pedagogical features. They also include phone interviews of teachers and principals concerning school programs, organisation, environment and outcomes. In order to increase school accountability, results-based colours were assigned to schools to reflect their students' performance: green meant success, orange meant moderate success and red meant failure. Schools warranting a red designation received an assistance package that included counselling, guidance, instructional resources and a targeted budget, while its pedagogical activities were closely supervised by school inspectors. A mix-method study was conducted using qualitative and quantitative research methods, among primary and middle schools teachers. Participants: It the qualitative study, teachers located in the southern and central regions of Israel were invited to participate in an interview. Forty-eight teachers (41 women and 7 men) accepted the invitation. In the quantitative study, data was collected using snowball-sampling methods. Teachers were recruited through online professional networks and forums as well as with the assistance of contact persons in various schools. In total, 238 teachers completed the survey (213 women and 25 men). Research instrument: The qualitative study included a semi-constructed in-depth interviews following13 open-ended questions related to the teacher's attitudes towards the Mietzav tests, actions and perceptions of how the Meitzav enable them to introduce pedagogical change. In the quantitative study, we used a survey questionnaire. It consisted of three sections (perceptions toward the Mitzav, pedagogical changes following the Meitzav outcomes and background information). In each section the participants were asked to rank their level of agreement on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 5 (don't agree at all to completely agree, respectively) with a list of items. Analysis: The qualitative data was analysed using categorical analysis, and the quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-tests and linear regression.

The mix-method study presented in this paper showed that the Israeli Meitzav tests were hardly fulfilled their intended purposes. As was found in this paper, the Meitzav tests results were scarcely being used as an instructional instrument for pedagogical transformative change to improve learning, as was expected by policy makers. In fact, the opposite outcome has been obtained; teachers considered these tests as non-reliable assessment tool that hardly reflected school curriculum or student learning, while producing high level of pressure on the teaching routine. In this situation, a pedagogical discourse following the tests results was limited. It is important to note that teachers have positive attitudes regarding the idea of ‘assessment for learning’ and they see high potential for educational improvements as a result of this testing regime. This study identified some local initiatives and actions in which teachers are involved in response to the Meitzav test results. These sorts of uses are representative of the school’s accountability for improving pedagogy and student performance. According to the teachers, the problem that emerged was the feeling that the Meitzav test has become an objective in and of itself. Under such conditions, it is not surprising that the initiatives and actions described above did not undermine the traditional foundations of the Israeli education system, and did not introduce significant pedagogical change. On the opposite, the qualitative and quantitative analysis showed that the most common pedagogical practice that was chosen by schools was: 'teaching for the test'. This targeted strategy was used by teachers even in early stages of primary school, aiming to achieve good performances in order to remain legitimate. Implications of these outcomes further discussed in the presentation.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018) Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(6), 551-575. Camphuijsen, M.K., Møller, J. & Skedsmo, G. (2021). Test-based accountability in the Norwegian context: exploring drivers, expectations and strategies. Journal of Education Policy, 36(5), 624-642. Copp, D. (2019). Accountability testing in Canada: Aligning provincial policy objectives with teachers’ practices. Canadian Journal of Administration and Policy, 188, 15-35. DeLuca, C., Valiquette, A., Coombs, A., LaPointe-McEwan, D. & Luhanga, U. (2018). Teachers’ approaches to classroom assessment: A large-scale survey. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(4), 355-375. Fischman, G.E., Topper, A.M., Silova, I., Goebel, J., & Holloway, J.L. (2019). Examining the influence of international large-scale assessments on national education policies. Journal of Education Policy, 43(4), 470-499. Johansson, S. (2016). International large-scale assessments: What uses, what consequences? Educational Research, 58(2), 139-148. Klinger, D.A., & W. Rogers, T. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of largescale assessment programs within low-stakes accountability frameworks. International Journal of Testing, 11(2), 122-143. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1978). The structure of educational organizations. In M. W. M. and Associates (Ed.), Environments and organizations (pp. 78–109). Jossey-Bass Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179. Peurach, D. J., Penuel, W. R., & Russell, J. L. (2018). Beyond ritualized rationality: Organizational dynamics of instructionally-focused continuous improvement. In M. Connolly, D. H. Eddy-Spicer, C. James, & S. Kruse (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of school organization (pp. 465–588). Sage Saeki, E., Segool, N. & Pendergast, L. (2018). The influence of test-based accountability policies on early elementary teachers: School climate, environmental stress, and teacher stress. Psychology in the Schools, 55(4), 391–403 Shepard, L.A., & Penuel, W.R. (2018). Using learning and motivations theories to coherently link formative assessment, grading practices and large-scale assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 37(1), 21-34. Smith, W. C. (2016). An introduction to the global testing culture. In W. C. Smith (Ed.). The global testing culture: shaping education policy, perceptions and practice (pp. 7–23). Symposium Books. Verger, A., Parcerisa, L., & Fontdevila, C. (2019). The growth and spread of large-scale assessments and test-based accountabilities: A political sociology of global education reforms, Educational Review, 71(1), 5-30. Yurkofsky. M. (2021). From Compliance to Improvement: How School Leaders Make Sense of Institutional and Technical Demands When Implementing a Continuous Improvement Process. Educational Administration Quarterly, 1–47