If you are a careful, or even selective, reader of RISE outputs, you will have noticed that over the past two years, the Politics of Learning emerged as a new theme, and in 2019, RISE had more to say on it than ever before.
Development practice has long been characterized by dialogues of the deaf. The divide between governance and sector specialists is one example. How this divide could be bridged is the focus of a new review essay by Lant Pritchett, currently the research director of the ambitious and influential Research on Improving Systems of Education (RISE) program.
RISE Working Paper 19/030 - The Limits of Accounting-Based Accountability in Education (and Far Beyond): Why More Accounting Will Rarely Solve Accountability Problems
A fundamental tension in the design of education systems is that, historically, they have served three very different roles. First, they have sought to impart knowledge and skills that improve employment and earnings prospects (the human capital role). Second, they have aimed to create shared norms of behaviour, values, and identity (the socialisation role). Third, they have aimed to assess and classify students by educational ability and achievement to select students for higher education and skill-intensive occupations (the sorting role).
This blog was originally posted on the Working with the grain: Integrating governance and growth website and has been cross-posted with the permission of the blog author, Brian Levy (@Brianlevy387).