In this paper, I argue that the new assessment and accountability policies that are being developed in many countries in Europe and around the world require individuals and groups at every level of the education system to take on new tasks and responsibilities for which few have been prepared.  While often described as providing schools with increased autonomy, these new tasks and responsibilities also come with demands that can limit flexibility and constrain and shape what schools can do.

To make this argument, I draw from findings from a comparative study of evolving approaches to assessing schools and holding them accountable for their performance in Norway, the Netherlands, Singapore, and the United States (with a focus on New York City).  While these locations are strikingly different – one is a city, one a “city-state”, and two are countries – all four have been working on new strategies for assessing, monitoring and holding schools accountable; they include two “higher-performing” countries on international assessments and two countries with lower-performance; and they reflect a range of approaches to centralization.

The study addressed three questions:

• What are the theories of action of the current approaches to school improvement, accountability and the assessment of schools in each context?
• What capacity do schools and school systems need in order to carry out these theories of action and meet established goals?
• What challenges are policymakers encountering in carrying out their approaches to school improvement, school assessment and accountability?

For this study, I defined an accountability system in education as the mechanisms and instruments by which education authorities (such as government ministers, policymakers, other government leaders) assign responsibilities to other members of the education system (such as teachers, school leaders and schools) and attempt to ensure that those responsibilities are met (Leithwood & Earl, 2000; Rothman, 1995).  Specifically, this study focused on examining the mechanisms and instruments used to control three different aspects of activity in each system – 1) planning and goal or expectation-setting for student performance; 2) monitoring student, school and system performance; and 3) follow-up and evaluation (Verhoest, 2005). 

This study also draws on an emerging conception of capacity that goes beyond a conventional focus on financial and physical resources (Cohen & Ball, 1999; Malen & Rice, 2004).  This broader view suggests that capacity encompasses the technical, human, and social capital needed to achieve particular goals.  In this conception, technical capital consists of money, physical materials, and resources; human capital includes the skills, knowledge and dispositions of the personnel involved; and social capital reflects the networks, norms of trust and collaboration, and collective commitment among those involved (Cohen & Ball, 1999; Corcoran & Goertz, 1995; O’Day, Floden, & Goertz, 1995; Putnam, 2002; Spillane, Hallet, & Diamond, 2003). 

Cohen, D. & Ball, D. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement. Pennsylvania, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Corcoran, T. & Goertz, M. (1995). Instructional capacity and high performance schools. Educational Researcher, 24 (9), 27-31. Leithwood, K. & Earl, L. (2000). Educational accountability effects: An international perspective. Peabody Journal of Education, 75(4), 1-18. Malen, B. & King Rice, J.(2004). A framework for assessing the impact of education reforms on school capacity: Insights from studies of high-stakes accountability initiatives. Educational Policy, 18 (5), 631-660. O'Day, J., Goertz, M., & Floden, R. (1995). Building capacity for education reform. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Shuster. Rothman, R. (1995). Measuring up: Standards, assessment, and school reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Spillane, J., Hallett, T., & Diamond, J. (2003). Forms of Capital and the Construction of Leadership: Instructional Leadership in Urban Elementary Schools, Sociology of Education, 76 (1), 1-17. Verhoest, K. (2005). The impact of contractualization on control and accountability in government-agency relations: The case of Flanders (Belgium). In G. Drewry, C. Grieve, & T. Tanquerel (Eds.) Contracts, performance and accountability (pp. 135-156). EGPA/IOS.