The framing of public evaluation data: Transparency and openness in Danish schools

Open to the Public: Evaluation in the Public Sector

Volumn , Issue , 2017, Pages 99-118

  Normann Andersen, Vibeke ^a   Dahler Larsen, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85077609500     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781315125770-8     Document Type: Chapter

References (17)

1. Andersen, V. N. (forthcoming). “Transparency and Openness. A Reform or Education Policy.” Scandinavian Political Studies.
2. Cibulka, J. G. and R. L. Derlin (1996). “State Educational Performance Reporting Policies in the U.S.: Accountability’s Many Faces.” International Journal of Education Research, vol. 23: Pp. 479-492.
3. Ehren, M.C.M, F. Leeuw, and J. Scheerens (2005): “On the Impact of the Dutch Educational Supervision Act: Analyzing Assumptions Concerning the Inspection of Primary Education.” American Journal of Evaluation, vol. 26, no. 1: Pp. 60-76.
4. Goldstein, H. (2001). “Using Pupil Performance Data for Judging Schools and Teachers: Scope and Limitations.” British Educational Research Journal, vol. 27, no. 4: Pp. 432-442.
5. Jacobs, K. (2000). “Devolved Management in New Zealand Schools”, 180-197 in: Margaret A. Arnott and Charles D. Raab (eds.), The Governance of Schooling: Comparative Studies of Devolved Management. London: Routledge.
6. Jyllandsposten, “Karakterer: Whiskybæltet topper.” December 7, 2001.
7. Lov nr. 414 af 06.06.2002. Lov om Gennemsigtighed og åbenhed i Uddannelserne mv. Copenhagen, Undervisningsministeriet.
8. Manovich, L. (2001). The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Meyer, M.W. and V. Gupta (1994). “The Performance Paradox.” Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 16: Pp. 309-369.
10. Nannestad, P. (2003). It’s not the Economy, Stupid! Municipal School Expenditures and School Achievement Levels in Denmark. Paper presented at the EPCS Annual Meeting in Aarhus, Denmark, April 25-28, 2003.
11. Newman, F., B. M. King and M. Rigdon (1997). “Accountability and School Performance: Implications from Restructuring Schools.” Harvard Educational Review, vol. 67, no. 1: Pp. 41-69.
12. Noordegraaf, M. and T. Amba (2003). “Management by Measurement? Public Management Practices amidst Ambiguity.” Public Administration, vol. 81, no. 4: Pp. 853-871.
13. Politiken. Special Edition, December 7, 2001.
14. Schwartz, R. (2000). “School Accountability—An Elusive Policy Solution: The Israeli Experience in Comparative Perspective.” Journal of Public Policy, vol. 20, no. 2: Pp. 195-218.
15. Schwartz, R. (2002). “New Public Management Education Reform: Politics, Policy Image and Political-Administrative Systems.” International Public Management Journal, vol. 5, no. 3: Pp. 277-295.
16. Storm, J. (2003). “Folkeskolernes karakterer”. Tidsskriftet Uddannelse, 8.
17. Van Thiel, S. and F. L. Leeuw (2002). “The performance paradox in the public sector.” Public Performance and Management Review, vol. 25, no. 3: Pp. 267-281.