9780429344855_oachapter11.pdf

While Finland and Singapore both enjoy the global educational limelight due to their successful school systems, they differ considerably in their approaches to teacher accountability. Finland’s light-touch teacher accountability system focuses on setting standards at the point of entry to the teachi...

Πλήρης περιγραφή

Λεπτομέρειες βιβλιογραφικής εγγραφής
Γλώσσα:English
Έκδοση: Taylor & Francis 2021
Διαθέσιμο Online:https://www.routledge.com/9780367362492
id oapen-20.500.12657-47016
record_format dspace
spelling oapen-20.500.12657-470162021-03-02T02:24:03Z Chapter 11 Contrasting approaches, comparable efficacy? Hwa, Yue-Yi teacher accountability policy; Finland; Singapore; teacher motivation; sociocultural context bic Book Industry Communication::J Society & social sciences::JN Education bic Book Industry Communication::J Society & social sciences::JN Education::JNF Educational strategies & policy While Finland and Singapore both enjoy the global educational limelight due to their successful school systems, they differ considerably in their approaches to teacher accountability. Finland’s light-touch teacher accountability system focuses on setting standards at the point of entry to the teaching profession, whereas Singapore uses a comprehensive, tiered, and competitive performance management system that deploys promotions and performance bonuses to manage the processes and outputs of teacher practice in schools. In this chapter, I use interviews with 24 Finnish and Singaporean teachers to explore the differences between these distinct approaches to teacher accountability—and to account for their disparate but apparently successful pathways. I argue that these disparate approaches share an underlying principle: each model of teacher accountability is compatible with the macrosystem in which it is embedded. Thus, teachers regard the accountability instruments as legitimate, enabling the instruments to favourably influence teacher motivation and practice. Specifically, public trust in Finland’s education system is distributed throughout each level of the system, with teachers enjoying high generalised trust. This is compatible with an accountability approach that gives teachers considerable autonomy over their daily work. In contrast, public trust in Singapore’s education system is concentrated on the Ministry of Education. This institutionally focused trust supports—and is supported by—a teacher accountability system that gives the managers considerable influence over teacher practice. 2021-03-01T09:58:28Z 2021-03-01T09:58:28Z 2021 chapter https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/47016 eng application/pdf Attribution 4.0 International 9780429344855_oachapter11.pdf https://www.routledge.com/9780367362492 Taylor & Francis Trust, Accountability and Capacity in Education System Reform Routledge 7b3c7b10-5b1e-40b3-860e-c6dd5197f0bb 184b7bd4-0466-4f6a-a256-1c7c5691e98d d43ca8f9-86b5-4d78-8265-9b2ebe6bf542 Routledge 31 BMGF OPP1144 BMGF OPP1144 Gates Cambridge Trust open access
institution OAPEN
collection DSpace
language English
description While Finland and Singapore both enjoy the global educational limelight due to their successful school systems, they differ considerably in their approaches to teacher accountability. Finland’s light-touch teacher accountability system focuses on setting standards at the point of entry to the teaching profession, whereas Singapore uses a comprehensive, tiered, and competitive performance management system that deploys promotions and performance bonuses to manage the processes and outputs of teacher practice in schools. In this chapter, I use interviews with 24 Finnish and Singaporean teachers to explore the differences between these distinct approaches to teacher accountability—and to account for their disparate but apparently successful pathways. I argue that these disparate approaches share an underlying principle: each model of teacher accountability is compatible with the macrosystem in which it is embedded. Thus, teachers regard the accountability instruments as legitimate, enabling the instruments to favourably influence teacher motivation and practice. Specifically, public trust in Finland’s education system is distributed throughout each level of the system, with teachers enjoying high generalised trust. This is compatible with an accountability approach that gives teachers considerable autonomy over their daily work. In contrast, public trust in Singapore’s education system is concentrated on the Ministry of Education. This institutionally focused trust supports—and is supported by—a teacher accountability system that gives the managers considerable influence over teacher practice.
title 9780429344855_oachapter11.pdf
spellingShingle 9780429344855_oachapter11.pdf
title_short 9780429344855_oachapter11.pdf
title_full 9780429344855_oachapter11.pdf
title_fullStr 9780429344855_oachapter11.pdf
title_full_unstemmed 9780429344855_oachapter11.pdf
title_sort 9780429344855_oachapter11.pdf
publisher Taylor & Francis
publishDate 2021
url https://www.routledge.com/9780367362492
_version_ 1771297426369413120