Chapter 11 Contrasting approaches, comparable efficacy? How macro-level trust influences teacher accountability in Finland and Singapore

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 t...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Hwa, Yue-Yi (auth)
Format: Electronic Book Chapter
Language:English
Published: Taylor & Francis 2021
Subjects:
Online Access:DOAB: download the publication
DOAB: description of the publication
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

MARC

LEADER 00000naaaa2200000uu 4500
001 doab_20_500_12854_63875
005 20210306
003 oapen
006 m o d
007 cr|mn|---annan
008 20210306s2021 xx |||||o ||| 0|eng d
020 |a 9780367362478 
020 |a 9780367362492 
040 |a oapen  |c oapen 
041 0 |a eng 
042 |a dc 
072 7 |a JN  |2 bicssc 
072 7 |a JNF  |2 bicssc 
100 1 |a Hwa, Yue-Yi  |4 auth 
245 1 0 |a Chapter 11 Contrasting approaches, comparable efficacy?  |b How macro-level trust influences teacher accountability in Finland and Singapore 
260 |b Taylor & Francis  |c 2021 
300 |a 1 electronic resource (31 p.) 
336 |a text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a computer  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a online resource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
506 0 |a Open Access  |2 star  |f Unrestricted online access 
520 |a 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. 
536 |a Gates Cambridge Trust 
540 |a Creative Commons  |f https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/  |2 cc  |4 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 
546 |a English 
650 7 |a Education  |2 bicssc 
650 7 |a Educational strategies & policy  |2 bicssc 
653 |a teacher accountability policy; Finland; Singapore; teacher motivation; sociocultural context 
773 1 0 |t Trust, Accountability and Capacity in Education System Reform  |7 nnaa  |o OAPEN Library UUID: f4f92513-97a8-4430-8f79-f96b7e22a6f3 
856 4 0 |a www.oapen.org  |u https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/20.500.12657/47016/1/9780429344855_oachapter11.pdf  |7 0  |z DOAB: download the publication 
856 4 0 |a www.oapen.org  |u https://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/63875  |7 0  |z DOAB: description of the publication