Testing regimes, accountabilities and education policy: commensurate global and national developments
Abstract
This paper focuses on outlining, contextualising and theorising the rise of global and complementary national modes of test-based, top-down accountability in schooling systems. The effects of these infrastructures of accountability on schools, teachers’ pedagogical work, on the width of curriculum and on the goals of schooling are also alluded to. These developments are theorised in terms of rescaling of the policy cycle globally, as a well as the topological turn that sees the globe reconstituted as a single space of comparative and commensurate measurement of the performance of school systems, as part of the move to new global forms of networked governance. We argue that we are seeing a new global panopticism, with national school systems variously positioned within the global market place and global educational policy field with important effects within national policy-making. The analysis and theorising provided serves as a contextual backdrop and introduction to the papers included in the special issue of the Journal of Education Policy on the theme of Testing Regimes, Accountabilities and Education Policy. We argue, and the papers demonstrate, the significance for policy sociology today of recognising testing as a, perhaps the, major policy steering systems and the work of schools today.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Curriculum reform in England has been dominated by a narrowing of the curriculum around priority subjects (English, mathematics and the sciences) and a test-based, numbers-driven accountability.
“Alongside the trials and tribulations within the music education community, curriculum reform more generally within England has been dominated by a narrowing of the curriculum around subjects that the government consider to be priority areas (English, mathematics and the sciences), and a test-based, numbers-driven accountability (Anagnostopoulos et al., 2013;Lingard et al., 2013Lingard et al., , 2”
From The policy and practice of music education in England, 2010–2020 (2021) · cites this paper as Lingard et al., 2013
Cites
Hattie, J. (2008) · doi:10.4324/9780203887332 · Cited by 3,051 · see citing works
The RoutledgeFalmer Reader in Sociology of Education
(2004) · doi:10.4324/9780203464106 · Cited by 307 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Historical threads, missing links, and future directions in AI in education
Williamson, B., & Eynon, R. (2020) · Learning, Media and Technology · doi:10.1080/17439884.2020.1798995 · Cited by 981 · see citing works
Chen, J., & Guo, W. (2020) · Educational Management Administration & Leadership · doi:10.1177/1741143218781066 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
Alternative education and social justice: considering issues of affective and contributive justice
Mills, M., McGregor, G., Baroutsis, A., Te Riele, K., & Hayes, D. (2016) · Critical Studies in Education · doi:10.1080/17508487.2016.1087413 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
“Lynch (2012) in her critique of Fraser’s theory suggests that ‘it does not recognize the affective domain of life as a discrete site of social practice’ (p.”
BackgroundThe policy and practice of music education in England, 2010–2020
Savage, J. (2021) · British Educational Research Journal · doi:10.1002/berj.3672 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lingard, B., Martino, W., & Rezai-Rashti, G.
- Affiliations
- The University of Queensland (AU)
- Western University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Lingard, Bob
- Venue
- Journal of Education Policy
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-09
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 539-556
- ISSN
- 0268-0939 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5106
- OpenAlex
- W2042614593
- Cited by
- 394
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 14
- FWCI
- 130.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Education Policy (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Global Educational Policies and Reforms
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Educational Assessment and Improvement
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Higher Education Governance and Development
- Keywords
- educational accountability, test-based accountability, global education policy, network governance, panopticism, school performance measurement, curriculum narrowing, policy sociology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review