In the context of recent reforms in the school systems of the federal states of Germany, schools are being confronted with a substantial variety of innovations. In general these reforms appear to be characterized by two opposite principles. On the on hand, schools are confronted with expectations aiming at autonomy and school development (cf. Rürup 2007, Hopkins 2005). On the other hand they are confronted with measures of external control which essentially imply several demands for accountability (cf. Darling-Hammond 2004, O’Day 2004, Linn 2004). Comparative standard tests are one according measure which embody these two opposite principles. By providing and feeding back comparative data about pupils’ achievement to headmasters and teachers such tests are supposed both to strengthen their accountability and to help them to improve or at least to control pupils' learning outcomes by means of evidence-based decision-making processes concerning the profession of teaching as well as the design of the surrounding organization (cf. EMSE 2009).
Autonomy and accountability can be understood either as contradictory or as complementary principles, in general as well as in the context of standard tests (cf. Böttcher 2006). Recent research about the use of standard tests in schools indicates more concretely that specific perceptions of the opposition of autonomy and accountability are associated with different ways of making sense and use of these tests (cf. Maier 2009, Hartung Beck 2009). Until now, these findings mainly are formulated in terms of attitudes. Starting from here, the present paper addresses the further question how autonomy and accountability are being reflected on the level of decisions and actions. In the first place this refers to the organisational working levels of instruction, school internal curriculum planning and school management.  Furthermore, special attention will be given to the question how the processing of information from standard tests is being joined together with further reform measures which embody the opposition of accountability and autonomy even more distinctively.  On the one hand this includes approaches such as formative assessment, self evaluation and the work on school profiles. On the other hand this refers to new external and quality assurance procedures such as school evaluations by school inspectors on the basis of according quality frameworks.

Böttcher, W. (2006): Bildungsstandards und Evaluation im Paradigma der Outputsteuerung. In: Böttcher, W. (Ed.): Evaluation im Bildungswesen. Eine Einführung in Grundlagen und Praxisbeispiele. Weinheim: Juventa. Pp. 39–50. Darling Hammond, L. (2004): Standards, Accountability, and School Reform. In: Teachers College Record, 106 (6), Pp. 1047–1085. Hartung-Beck, V. (2009): Schulische Organisationsentwicklung und Professionalisierung. Folgen von Lernstandserhebungen an Gesamtschulen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Hopkins, D. (2005) (Ed.): The Practice and Theory of School Improvement. International Handbook of Educational Change. New York: Springer. Krippendorff, K. (2004): Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Linn, R. L. (2004): Accountability Models. In: Fuhrmann, S. H. & Elmore, R.F. (Eds.): Redesigning Accountability Systems for Education. New York/London: Teachers College Press. Pp. 73-95. Maier, U. (2009): Wie gehen Lehrerinnen und Lehrer mit Vergleichsarbeiten um? Eine Studie zu testbasierten Schulreformen in Baden-Württemberg und Thüringen. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag. O'Day, Jennifer A. (2004): Complexity, Accountability, and School Improvement. In: Fuhrman, S. H.; Elmore, R. F. (Eds.): Redesigning accountability systems for education. New York: Teachers College Press. Pp. 15–43. Rürup, M. (2007): Innovationswege im deutschen Bildungssystem. Die Verbreitung der Idee „Schulautonomie im Ländervergleich“. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.