This paper examines the trajectory of research on educational accountability over the past three decades through a systematic review of 105 influential academic articles selected from the Web of Science database (1995–2024).

Educational accountability has been a central topic in educational research and policy over the past several decades. This concept—encompassing both the obligation to report and the responsibility for processes and outcomes within the educational field—has undergone a notable evolution. A wide range of studies have examined how accountability systems, particularly those of a performative or market-based nature, interact with education systems and influence student performance, teaching practices, school management, and educational equity, either positively or negatively (MacNeil, Butler & Schnellert, 2023).

Accountability is a mechanism with a long-standing presence in the structure of the state. As such, it has undergone various processes of evolution and change and has taken on different forms depending on how questions of what is being accounted for, to whom, and in what manner, are answered (Newmann et al., 1996). Despite these variations, some elements remain relatively constant. These are reflected in Bovens’ (2007) definition of accountability as “a social relationship in which an actor is obliged to explain and justify his or her conduct to another actor, who is entitled to pose questions, pass judgment, and eventually impose sanctions” (p. 450).

Public attention and academic interest have largely focused on performative or market-based accountability. This model is one of the ways in which accountability has been implemented in education systems, as outlined in the typology proposed nearly 35 years ago by Darling-Hammond and Ascher (1991), referenced in the previous chapter.

Highlighting this historical and conceptual context is essential, as accountability functions as a mechanism of public management that can be implemented through various perspectives and strategies. However, it is also a clear indicator of the political priorities and conceptions of the role of the state and citizenship in society (De Lissovoy, 2015). For this reason, it is important to stress from the outset that the emphasis on performative accountability should not obscure the existence of other designs and possibilities for implementing this mechanism.

In light of this conceptual context, this review aimed to identify the main emphases guiding the analysis of accountability and the kinds of results associated with its implementation. Within this framework, the review posed two key questions: What role has performative accountability played in the literature, given its dominance over recent decades? And to what extent have alternative accountability designs been explored across the period under study?

The methodology for this literature review was based on a systematic search of publications in the Web of Science database, covering the period from 1995 to 2024. Specific selection criteria were applied to ensure the relevance and impact of the articles included in the analysis. These criteria are outlined below. 1. Time frame: The review considered articles published between 1995 and 2024, offering both a historical and contemporary perspective on the topic. 2. Keywords: The search was based exclusively on the term “educational accountability”, focusing on studies that addressed its application at the school level. 3. Type of document: Only scientific documents were considered for this review, in order to analyse the subject matter from a strictly academic perspective. 4. Relevance: Initially, the 100 most relevant articles were selected according to Web of Science search criteria, ensuring thematic alignment with the topic. 5. Refinement process: A second round of selection was conducted to exclude articles that did not directly contribute to the focus of the review—namely, studies that did not analyze educational accountability mechanisms at the school level, whether from a theoretical or empirical perspective. As a result, five articles were excluded from the final sample. As a result of the methodology used, no articles published from 2021 onward initially appeared in the search results. This is likely due to the recency of their publication, which means they do not yet meet the relevance thresholds of the search engine. To address this limitation, a targeted search was conducted for this specific time range, from which the 10 most relevant articles were selected based on the previously defined criteria. In total, 105 articles were included in the final analysis.

The review of the research trajectory on educational accountability reveals clear patterns of both continuity and change. In terms of continuity, the central focus has consistently remained on performative accountability. It was present at the outset of the period and continues to dominate the academic conversation to this day. The vast majority of the reviewed works centered on this model, most of them offering critical rather than favorable perspectives. The literature on performative accountability evolved notably over time. It began with a focus on its effectiveness, particularly in terms of measurable outputs and school or teacher evaluations. Over time, the focus shifted toward understanding its impact on educational actors and institutional dynamics, and later toward theorizing its logic and mechanisms. This evolution reflects a trend toward more holistic and critical analyses, often grounded in a growing consensus about the model’s limited benefits and documented negative consequences. However, this evolution also has clear limits. Most notably, while there is now a relatively well-established diagnosis of what performative accountability is and what its shortcomings are, there has not been equivalent progress in identifying or advancing robust alternatives. That said, alternative proposals and conceptual openings have emerged across nearly all periods of analysis. Although these proposals are often fragmented and lacking a unifying framework, two recurring strands of thought can be observed: (i) Community-based accountability and (ii) Professional accountability.

Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x Darling- Hammond, L. y Ascher, C. (1991). Creating accountability in Big City School Systems. [Digital version] Urban Diversity Series. N° 102. De Lissovoy, N. (2015). Education and Emancipation in the Neoliberal Era. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137375315_3 Newmann, F. M., King, M. B., & Rigdon, M. (1996). Accountability and school performance: Implications from restructuring schools (Final Deliverable). Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools, University of Wisconsin-Madison. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED412631.pdf MacNeil, K. A., Butler, D. L., & Schnellert, L. M. (2023). From accountability to shared responsibility: A case study of a multi-layered educational change initiative. Journal of Educational Change, 24(2), 267-290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09440-4