Chapter 11 Contrasting approaches, comparable efficacy?
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...
Furkejuvvon:
| Váldodahkki: | |
|---|---|
| Materiálatiipa: | Online |
| Giella: | eaŋgalasgiella |
| Almmustuhtton: |
Taylor & Francis
2021
|
| Fáttát: | |
| Liŋkkat: | https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/47016 |
| Fáddágilkorat: |
Eai fáddágilkorat, Lasit vuosttaš fáddágilkora!
|
| _version_ | 1869527566890565632 |
|---|---|
| author | Hwa, Yue-Yi |
| author_browse | Hwa, Yue-Yi |
| author_facet | Hwa, Yue-Yi |
| author_sort | Hwa, Yue-Yi |
| collection | Directory of Open Access Books |
| 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. |
| format | Online |
| id | doab-20.500.12854ir-63875 |
| institution | Directory of Open Access Books |
| language | eng |
| publishDate | 2021 |
| publishDateRange | 2021 |
| publishDateSort | 2021 |
| publisher | Taylor & Francis |
| publisherStr | Taylor & Francis |
| record_format | ojs |
| spelling | doab-20.500.12854ir-638752025-06-11T05:33:48Z Chapter 11 Contrasting approaches, comparable efficacy? Hwa, Yue-Yi teacher accountability policy; Finland; Singapore; teacher motivation; sociocultural context thema EDItEUR::J Society and Social Sciences::JN Education thema EDItEUR::J Society and Social Sciences::JN Education::JNF Educational strategies and 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. 2021-03-06T03:00:42Z 2021-03-06T03:00:42Z 2021-03-01T09:58:28Z 2021 chapter https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/47016 9780367362478 9780367362492 9780367362492 https://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/63875 eng open access image/jpeg image/jpeg image/jpeg Attribution 4.0 International Attribution 4.0 International Attribution 4.0 International https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/20.500.12657/47016/1/9780429344855_oachapter11.pdf https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/20.500.12657/47016/1/9780429344855_oachapter11.pdf https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/20.500.12657/47016/1/9780429344855_oachapter11.pdf Taylor & Francis Routledge fa69b019-f4ee-4979-8d42-c6b6c476b5f0 Trust, Accountability and Capacity in Education System Reform Gates Cambridge Trust d43ca8f9-86b5-4d78-8265-9b2ebe6bf542 9780367362478 9780367362492 9780367362492 Routledge 31 BMGF OPP1144 BMGF OPP1144 open access |
| spellingShingle | teacher accountability policy; Finland; Singapore; teacher motivation; sociocultural context thema EDItEUR::J Society and Social Sciences::JN Education thema EDItEUR::J Society and Social Sciences::JN Education::JNF Educational strategies and policy Hwa, Yue-Yi Chapter 11 Contrasting approaches, comparable efficacy? |
| title | Chapter 11 Contrasting approaches, comparable efficacy? |
| title_full | Chapter 11 Contrasting approaches, comparable efficacy? |
| title_fullStr | Chapter 11 Contrasting approaches, comparable efficacy? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Chapter 11 Contrasting approaches, comparable efficacy? |
| title_short | Chapter 11 Contrasting approaches, comparable efficacy? |
| title_sort | chapter 11 contrasting approaches comparable efficacy |
| topic | teacher accountability policy; Finland; Singapore; teacher motivation; sociocultural context thema EDItEUR::J Society and Social Sciences::JN Education thema EDItEUR::J Society and Social Sciences::JN Education::JNF Educational strategies and policy |
| topic_facet | teacher accountability policy; Finland; Singapore; teacher motivation; sociocultural context thema EDItEUR::J Society and Social Sciences::JN Education thema EDItEUR::J Society and Social Sciences::JN Education::JNF Educational strategies and policy |
| url | https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/47016 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT hwayueyi chapter11contrastingapproachescomparableefficacy |