03074namaa2200433uu 4500001001000000003000600010005001700016006001900033007001500052008004100067020001800108020001800126020001800144040001700162041000800179042000700187072001500194072001600209720002400225245011200249260002700361300002200388336002600410337002600436338003600462506005100498520162200549540006302171546001202234650002202246650004402268653009702312720002802409720002802437720002402465793001802489856011602507999001702623doab63872oapen20260305123944.0m     o  d        cr|mn|---annan210306s2021    xx |||||o     ||| 0|eng d  a9780367362478  a9780367362492  a9780429344855  aoapencoapen0 aeng  adc 7aJN2bicssc 7aJNF2bicssc1 aEhren, Melanie4edt00aTrust, Accountability and Capacity in Education System ReformbGlobal Perspectives in Comparative Education  bTaylor & Francisc2021  a1 online resource  atextbtxt2rdacontent  acomputerbc2rdamedia  aonline resourcebcr2rdacarrier0 aFree-to-readfUnrestricted online access2star  aWhile 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.  aAll rights reserveduhttp://oapen.org/content/about-rights  aEnglish 7aEducation2bicssc 7aEducational strategies & policy2bicssc  ateacher accountability policy; Finland; Singapore; teacher motivation; sociocultural context1 aBaxter, Jacqueline4edt1 aBaxter, Jacqueline4oth1 aEhren, Melanie4oth0 aDOAB Library.40uhttps://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/6387270zFree-to-read: DOAB: description of the publication  c92567d92567