Home All Issues Issue articles Previous article Next article

Schools' Evaluation Drift: Inconsistencies and Interpellations of a High-Stakes Inspection System

Lídia Jesus Pecegueiro Serra 1 * ,
José Matias Alves 1
1 Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Research Centre of Human Development, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Porto, Portugal* Corresponding Author
Educational Point, 2(2), 2025, e139, https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/17660
Publication date: Dec 29, 2025
Research Article
Open Access Open Access
Download PDF

ABSTRACT

A consensus exists in transnational educational policy regarding the relevance of accountability and the contribution of school evaluation to education quality. This paper scrutinises the evaluation results of Portuguese schools provided by the Inspectorate services using a pairwise comparison between 194 schools evaluated in 2018-2020 and 2021-2023. Regarding the literature gap on the behaviour of accountability systems over time, this study can contribute to a reflection on justice and transparency in high-stakes systems. The findings suggest that (i) the external evaluation results drift following a directional evolutionary model, indicating progression concerning the self-evaluation, educational services, and results domains; (ii) the occurrence of standardisation and leadership legitimisation phenomenon; (iii) possible side effects in the schools' evaluation process, namely evasive behaviour, apparent and constructed realities, and evaluation distortion; (iv) the external evaluation framework flexibility in accommodating territorial differences between schools without producing system disadvantage. Departing from insights into how a high-stakes external evaluation system operates over time, the study offers an empirically grounded assumption that reveals dynamics not unique to Portugal, but characteristic of accountability regimes adopted across many educational systems. In conclusion, to improve the quality of education, low-stakes accountability systems should be implemented to strengthen transparent schools' autonomy.

KEYWORDS

accountability external evaluation high-stakes system legitimation trust organised hypocrisy

CITATION (APA)

Serra, L. J. P., & Alves, J. M. (2025). Schools' Evaluation Drift: Inconsistencies and Interpellations of a High-Stakes Inspection System. Educational Point, 2(2), e139. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/17660
Harvard
Serra, L. J. P., and Alves, J. M. (2025). Schools' Evaluation Drift: Inconsistencies and Interpellations of a High-Stakes Inspection System. Educational Point, 2(2), e139. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/17660
Vancouver
Serra LJP, Alves JM. Schools' Evaluation Drift: Inconsistencies and Interpellations of a High-Stakes Inspection System. Educational Point. 2025;2(2):e139. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/17660
AMA
Serra LJP, Alves JM. Schools' Evaluation Drift: Inconsistencies and Interpellations of a High-Stakes Inspection System. Educational Point. 2025;2(2), e139. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/17660
Chicago
Serra, Lídia Jesus Pecegueiro, and José Matias Alves. "Schools' Evaluation Drift: Inconsistencies and Interpellations of a High-Stakes Inspection System". Educational Point 2025 2 no. 2 (2025): e139. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/17660
MLA
Serra, Lídia Jesus Pecegueiro et al. "Schools' Evaluation Drift: Inconsistencies and Interpellations of a High-Stakes Inspection System". Educational Point, vol. 2, no. 2, 2025, e139. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/17660

REFERENCES

  1. Afonso, A.J. (2015). Do desequilíbrio do pilar da autoavaliação no modelo de avaliação externa: Apontamentos. In E. Faria & R. Perdigão (Eds.), Textos do seminário avaliação externa das Escolas (pp. 217-225). Conselho Nacional da Educação. ISBN: 978-972-8360-97-9
  2. Barreira, C., Vaz Rebelo, M. P., Bidarra, M. G., Seabra, F., & Abelha, M. (2023). Cap. III - Satisfação, efeitos e mecanismos de mudança na sequência do 3º ciclo de AEE: perceções de professores e lideranças escolares. In. I. Fialho, et. al. (Eds.), Avaliação Externa das Escolas. Mecanismos de Mudança nas Escolas e na Inspeção (pp. 89-116). Editora Humus.
  3. Barroso, J. (2022). Administração e política educacional: Um percurso de investigação (Coleção Trajetos de Investigação Educacional) [Ebook]. Instituto de Educação, Universidade de Lisboa.
  4. Brown, C., & Zhang, D. (2017). Accounting for discrepancies in teachers’ attitudes towards evidence use and actual instances of evidence use in schools. Cambridge Journal of Education, 47(2), 277–295. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2016.1158784
  5. Brunsson, N. (2006) A Organização da Hipocrisia - Diálogo, Decisão e Acção nas Organizações. Asa.
  6. Campbell, D. T. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(79)90048-X
  7. Carvalho, L. M., & Costa, E. (2017). Avaliação externa das escolas em Portugal: atores, conhecimentos, modos de regulação. Revista Brasileira de Política e Administração da Educação, 33(3), 685–705. https://doi.org/10.21573/vol33n32017.79302
  8. Castro, H. de F., & Alves, J. (2013). Avaliação de escolas: o gerenciamento da imagem ao serviço da legitimação. Revista Portuguesa de Investigação Educacional, 13, 49–82. https://doi.org/10.34632/investigacaoeducacional.2013.3389
  9. Cavendish, W., Márquez, A., Roberts, M., Suarez, K., & Lima, W. (2017). Student engagement in high-stakes accountability systems. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 14(1), 2–5. http://www.urbanedjournal.org/volume-14-issue-1-fall-2017-15-years-urban-education-special-anniversary-edition-journal/student
  10. Chin, S. Z., Seng, H. Z., & Chan, M. Y. (2019). Doing legitimacy in talk: The production of leader–follower relationship in spiritual consultation interactions. SAGE Open, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019846695
  11. Cochran-Smith, M. (2021). Rethinking teacher education: The trouble with accountability. Oxford Review of Education, 47(1), 8–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2020.1842181
  12. Constantinides, M. (2022). High-stakes accountability policies and local adaptation: exploring how school principals respond to multiple policy demands. School Leadership and Management, 42(2), 170–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2021.2016687
  13. Dahler-Larsen, P. (2014). Constitutive effects of performance indicators. Public Management Review, 16(7), 969–986. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.770058
  14. Donaldson, G. (2013). Starter Paper on Inspection and Innovation. Starter Paper on Inspection and Innovation, 1–8. https://www.nmva.smm.lt/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/SICI-Paper-Bratislava-2013-final-version-24-05-Graham-Donaldson.pdf
  15. Ehren, M., & Bachmann, R. (2020). Accountability to build school and system improvement capacity. In M. Ehren & J. Baxter (Eds.), Correct: Trust, accountability and capacity in education system reform: Global perspectives in comparative education (pp. 102-123). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429344855-5
  16. Ehren, M., & Visscher, A. J. (2006). Towards a theory on the impact of school inspections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(1), 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2006.00333.x
  17. Fleischer, D. N., & Christie, C. A. (2009). Evaluation use: Results from a survey of U.S. American Evaluation Association Members. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(2), 158–175. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/109821400833100
  18. Fahey, G. & F. Köster (2019). Means, ends and meaning in accountability for strategic education governance, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 204, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d516b5c-en.
  19. Fullan, M., Rincón-Gallardo, S., & Hargreaves, A. (2015). Professional capital as accountability. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 23(15), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1998
  20. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update. Allyn & Bacon.
  21. Hanberger, A., Carlbaum, S., Hult, A., Lindgren, L., & Lundström, U. (2016). School evaluation in Sweden in a local perspective: A synthesis. Education Inquiry, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v7.30115
  22. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press.
  23. Hargreaves, A. (2019). Teacher collaboration: 30 years of research on its nature, forms, limitations and effects. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 25(5), 603–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2019.1639499.
  24. Heilig, J. V., Brewer, T. J., & Pedraza, J. O. (2018). Examining the myth of accountability, high-stakes testing, and the achievement gap. Journal of Family Strengths, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.58464/2168-670x.1389
  25. Helgøy, I., Homme, A., & Gewirtz, S. (2007). Local autonomy or state control? Exploring the effects of new forms of regulation in education. European Educational Research Journal, 6(3), 198–202. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.3.198
  26. Hopkins, E., Hendry, H., Garrod, F., McClare, S., Pettit, D., Smith, L., Burrell, H., & Temple, J. (2016). Teachers’ views of the impact of school evaluation and external inspection processes. Improving Schools, 19(1), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480215627894
  27. Hutt, M., & Lewis, N. (2021). Ready for reform? Narratives of accountability from teachers and education leaders in Wales. School Leadership and Management, 41(4–5), 470–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2021.1942823
  28. Keddie, A. (2015). School autonomy, accountability, and collaboration: A critical review. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 47(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2015.974146
  29. Knapp, M. S., & Feldman, S. B. (2012). Managing the intersection of internal and external accountability: Challenge for urban school leadership in the United States. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), 666–694. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231211249862
  30. Küçükbere, R. Ö., & Balkar, B. (2021). Teacher accountability for teacher occupational professionalism: The effect of accountability on occupational awareness with the mediating roles of contribution to organization, emotional labor and personal development. Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, 14(3), 167–179. https://doi.org/10.7160/eriesj.2021.140304
  31. Levatino, A., Parcerisa, L., & Verger, A. (2024). Understanding the stakes: The Influence of accountability policy options on teachers’ responses. Educational Policy, 38(1) 31 –60. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048221142048
  32. Liddell, T.M., & Kruschke, J. K. (2018). Analysing ordinal data with metric models: What could possibly go wrong? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 328–348. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.08.009
  33. Lillejord, S. (2020). From “unintelligent” to intelligent accountability. Journal of Educational Change, 21(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09379-y
  34. Liu, H., Luo, L., & Tang, W. (2021). Kindergarten teachers’ experiences of stress under a high-stakes inspection regime: An exploration in the Chinese context. International Journal of Educational Research, 109(July), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101850
  35. Matteucci, M., Guglielmi, D., & Lauermann, F. (2017). Teachers’ sense of responsibility for educational outcomes and its associations with teachers’ instructional approaches and professional well-being. Social Psychology of Education, 2, 275–298. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9369-y
  36. McCrone, T., Coghlan, M., Wade, P., & Rudd, P. (2009). Evaluation of the impact of Section 5 inspections - Strand 3. Final Report for Ofsted. Slough: NFER. https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/73958/
  37. McNamara, G., & O’Hara, J. (2008). The importance of the concept of self-evaluation in the changing landscape of education policy. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 34(3), 173–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2008.08.001
  38. Mincu, M. (2022). Why is school leadership key to transforming education? Structural and cultural assumptions for quality education in diverse contexts. Prospects, 52(3–4), 231–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-022-09625-6
  39. Miranda, H. M. C. G., Seabra, F., & Pacheco, J. A. (2023). Avaliação externa das escolas, regulação por pares, trabalho colaborativo e qualidade educativa: qual a relação? Práxis Educativa, 18, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.5212/PraxEduc.v.18.21863.065
  40. Mouraz, A., Leite, C., & Fernandes, P. (2019). Between external influence and autonomy of schools: Effects of external evaluation of schools. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 29, 1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1982-4327e2922
  41. Mufic, J. (2023). Discursive effects of “quality” talk during a quality audit in Swedish municipal adult education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2022.2042844
  42. OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. OECD Education Working Papers, 23. https://one.oecd.org/document/EDU/EDPC(2018)45/ANN2/en/pdf
  43. OECD. (2020). Developing a school evaluation framework to drive school improvement. OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No.26, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/60b471de-en.
  44. Ólafsdóttir, B., Jónasson, J. T., Sigurðardóttir, A. K., & Aspelund, T. (2022). The mechanisms by which external school evaluation in Iceland influences internal evaluation and school professionals’ practices. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 8(3), 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2022.2076376
  45. Oliveira, D. S. (2017). Qualidade da educação em Portugal: O papel da avaliação externa de escolas [Dissertação de doutoramento, Universidade de Aveiro]. RIA – Repositório Institucional da Universidade de Aveiro.
  46. O’Neill, O. (2013). Intelligent accountability in education. Oxford Review of Education, 39(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2013.764761
  47. Penninckx, M. (2017). Effects and side effects of school inspections: A general framework. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 52, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.06.006
  48. Pizmony-Levy, O., & Woolsey, A. (2017). Politics of education and teachers' support for high-stakes teacher accountability policies. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(87), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2892
  49. Portz, J. (2021). “Next-generation” accountability? Evidence from three school districts. Urban Education, 56(8), 1297–1327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085917741727
  50. Roberts, J. (2018). Managing only with transparency: The strategic functions of ignorance. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 55, 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2017.12.004
  51. Sattin-Bajaj, C., & Jennings, J. L. (2020). School counsellors’ assessment of the legitimacy of high school choice policy. Educational Policy, 34(1), 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904819881774
  52. Schillemans, T., & Bovens, M. (2011). The challenge of multiple accountability: Does redundancy lead to overload? In M. J. Dubnick & H. G. Frederickson (Eds.), Accountable governance. Problems and promises (pp. 3–21). Routledge.
  53. Sampaio, M., & Leite, C. (2016). A avaliação externa das escolas e os TEIP na sua relação com a justiça social. Educação, Sociedade & Culturas, 47, 115-136. https://doi.org/10.34626/esc.vi47.190
  54. Seabra, F., Abelha, M., Henriques, S., & Mouraz, A. (2022). Policies and practices of external evaluation of schools: Spaces for teacher collaboration? Ensaio: Avaliação e Políticas Públicas em Educação, 30(116), 664-668. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-40362022003003442
  55. Seabra, F., Mouraz, A., Henriques, S., & Abelha, M. (2021). Teacher supervision in educational policy and practice: Perspectives from the External Evaluation of Schools in Portugal. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 29(August - December). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.29.6486
  56. Serra, L., Alves, J. M., & Soares, D. R. (2023a). The role of external evaluation control mechanisms and the missing loop of innovation. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 7(5), 156–182. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202322764
  57. Serra, L., Alves, J. M., & Soares, D. (2023b). Mapping innovation in educational contexts: drivers and barriers. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 35(1), 74-98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIL.2024.135169
  58. Serra, L., Alves, J., & Soares, D. (2024). Pseudomorphosis of schools’ system and the fiction of its regulatory processes: A study of educational narratives. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 8(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpr.202424016
  59. Serra, L., Alves, J. M., & Soares, D. R. (2025). Innovation on the margins of the external evaluation of Portuguese schools. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 37(1), 60-84. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIL.2025.143000
  60. Simeonova, R., Parvanova, Y., Brown, M., & Ehren, G. (2020). A continuum of approaches to school inspections: Cases from Europe. Pedagogy, 92(4), 487–507. https://doras.dcu.ie/30486/1/Continuum.pdf
  61. Six, F. (2021). Trust, Accountability and capacity in education system reform: Global perspectives in comparative education. In M. Ehren & J. Baxter (Eds.), Trust-based accountability in education: The role of intrinsic motivation (pp. 55–77). Routledge.
  62. Sorm, S., & Gunbayi, I. (2018). School leadership: The exercise of legitimate power in Cambodia. European Journal of Education Studies, 4(1947), 256–284. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1238513
  63. Sousa, J., & Pacheco, J. A. (2021, September 2-10). External evaluation of schools in Portugal and the global agenda [Conference session]. European Conference on Educational Research - ECER 2021 “Education and Society: expectations, prescriptions, reconciliations”, Geneva, Italy. https://hdl.handle.net/1822/83627
  64. Thiel, C., & Bellmann, J. (2017). Rethinking side effects of accountability in education: Insights from a multiple methods study in four German school systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(93), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2662
  65. Visscher, A. J., & Coe, R. (2003). School performance feedback systems: Conceptualisation, analysis, and reflection. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14(3), 321–349. https://doi.org/10.1076/sesi.14.3.321.15842
  66. West, A., & Pennell, H. (2005). Market-oriented reforms and “high stakes” testing: Incentives and consequences*. Cahiers de La Recherche Sur l’Éducation et Les Savoirs, 1, 181–199. https://doi.org/10.4000/cres.1961
  67. Zamir, S. (2019). The polymeric model of school evaluation in the era of accountability. Quality Assurance in Education, 27(4), 401–411. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-06-2018-0070

LICENSE

Creative Commons License
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.