The role of external evaluation control mechanisms and the missing loop of innovation
Lídia Jesus Pecegueiro Serra 1 * , José Matias Alves 1, Diana Rafaela Soares 1
More Detail
1 Portuguese Catholic University, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Research Centre for Human Development, Portugal
* Corresponding Author


School accountability is transitioning and incorporating socioeconomic narratives regarding inclusion, responsiveness to societal challenges, improving performance, and continuous adjustments through innovation. Considering external evaluation mechanisms of regulation, this study provides evidence of the schools’ lack of strategic orientations towards innovation that may leverage coherent and lasting improvements. A mixed research method was used to analyse 60 external evaluation reports concerning Portuguese school clusters. The study aims were to depict the school's strengths and improvement areas and identify associations between the school's organisational and pedagogical options that can promote or impede transformation. It used the odds ratio to quantify the associations' strengths and assess educational system practices. The results evidence that leadership and management appear as a robust valency in the Portuguese educational system, and self-evaluation and innovation are aspects of the school organisation that need to be developed and impactful. The findings also suggest that innovation appears as a missing loop when considering the external evaluation control mechanisms of action.



  • Adeyemi, S. B., & Awolere, M. A. (2016). Effects of experiential and generative learning strategies on students’ academic achievement in environmental concepts. Journal of Human Ecology, 56(3), 251–262.
  • Anselmus Dami, Z., Budi Wiyono, B., Imron, A., Burhanuddin, B., Supriyanto, A., & Daliman, M. (2022). Principal self-efficacy for instructional leadership in the perspective of principal strengthening training: work engagement, job satisfaction and motivation to leave. Cogent Education, 9(1), 2064407.
  • Atik, S., & Celik, O. T. (2020). An investigation of the relationship between school principals’ empowering leadership style and teachers’ job satisfaction: the role of trust and psychological empowerment. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 12(3), 177–193.
  • Azorín, C., & Fullan, M. (2022). Leading new, deeper forms of collaborative cultures: Questions and pathways. Journal of Educational Change, 23(1), 131–143.
  • Bardin, L. (2009). Análise de conteúdo [Content analysis]. Edições 70.
  • Barroso, J. (2018). The transversality of regulations in education: A model of analysis for the study of educational policies in Portugal. Educacao e Sociedade, 39(145), 1075–1097.
  • Bellei, C., & Munoz, G. (2021). Models of regulation, education policies, and changes in the education system: a long-term analysis of the Chilean case. Journal of Educational Change, 24, 49-76.
  • Biesta, G. (2012). Boa educação na era da mensuração. Cadernos de Pesquisa, 42(147), 808–825.
  • Blömeke, S., Nilsen, T., & Scherer, R. (2021). School innovativeness is associated with enhanced teacher collaboration, innovative classroom practices, and job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(8), 1645–1667.
  • Brady, A. M. (2019). Anxiety of performativity and anxiety of performance: self-evaluation as bad faith. Oxford Review of Education, 45(5), 605–618.
  • Brown, C., MacGregor, S., & Flood, J. (2020). Can models of distributed leadership be used to mobilise networked generated innovation in schools? A case study from England. Teaching and Teacher Education, 94, 103101.
  • Brown, M., McNamara, G., Ohara, J., O’Brien, S., & Faddar, J. (2018). Integrated co-professional evaluation? Converging approaches to school evaluation across frontiers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(12), 76–90.
  • Chen, L., Zheng, W., Yang, B., & Bai, S. (2016). Transformational leadership, social capital and organizational innovation. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 37(7), 843–859.
  • Devos, G., Tuytens, M., & Hulpia, H. (2014). Teachers’ organizational commitment: Examining the mediating effects of distributed leadership. American Journal of Education, 120(2), 205–231.
  • Díaz Larenas, C., Solar, M. I., Soto Hernández, V., & Conejeros Solar, M. (2015). Teachers' perceptions on research and innovation in their professional contexts. Actualidades Investigativas En Educación, 15(2), 202–232.
  • Dimmock, C. (2011). Leadership, capacity building and school improvement concepts, themes and impact. Routledge.
  • Domanski, D., Howaldt, J., & Kaletka, C. (2020). A comprehensive concept of social innovation and its implications for the local context–on the growing importance of social innovation ecosystems and infrastructures. European Planning Studies, 28(3), 454–474.
  • Donaldson, G. (2013). Starter paper on inspection and innovation.
  • Edwards, G. (2010). Mixed-methods approaches to social network analysis. NCRM.
  • Ezzani, M. (2015). Coherent district reform: A case study of two California school districts. Cogent Education, 2(1), Article 101869.
  • Fink, D. (2010). The succession challenge - building and susteining leadership capacity through succession management. Sage.
  • French, R., Mahat, M., Kvan, T., & Imms, W. (2022). Viewing the transition to innovative learning environments through the lens of the burke-litwin model for organizational performance and change. Journal of Educational Change, 23(1), 115–130.
  • Fullan, M. (2020). The nature of leadership is changing. European Journal of Education, 55(2), 139–142.
  • Fullan, M., Rincón-Gallardo, S., & Hargreaves, A. (2015). Professional capital as accountability. Educational Policy Analisys Archives, 23(15), 1–18.
  • Gil, A. J., Rodrigo-Moya, B., & Morcillo-Bellido, J. (2018). The effect of leadership in the development of innovation capacity: A learning organization perspective. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 39(6), 694–711.
  • Gkorezis, P. (2016). Principal empowering leadership and teacher innovative behavior: a moderated mediation model. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(6), 1030–1044.
  • 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), 30115.
  • 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.
  • Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press.
  • 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.
  • Kennedy, J. F., Roose-, E., Luther, M., Jr, K., Susan, B., & Mandela, N. (2017). Leadership as a Way. Profesorado, 21(2), 21–26.
  • Khaola, P. P., & Oni, F. A. (2020). The influence of school principals’ leadership behaviour and act of fairness on innovative work behaviours amongst teachers. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 1–8.
  • Khun-Inkeeree, H., Mohd Yaakob, M. F., WanHanafi, W. R., Yusof, M. R., & Omar-Fauzee, M. S. (2021). Working on primary school teachers’ preconceptions of organizational climate and job satisfaction. International Journal of Instruction, 14(3), 567–582.
  • Konst, T., & Kairisto-Mertanen, L. (2020). Developing innovation pedagogy approach. On the Horizon, 28(1), 45–54.
  • 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.
  • Lee, S. Y. (2020). Analysis of the effect of school organizational culture and professional learning communities on teacher efficacy. Integration of Education, 24(2), 206–217.
  • Lima, L. C., & Torres, L. L. (2020). Policies, dynamics and profiles of school clusters in Portugal. Análise Social, 55(237), 748–774.
  • Luger, B. (2011). Trustees of Boston University Review Reviewed Work(s): Professional Capital- Transforming teaching in every school by Andy Hargreaves and Michael Fullan. The Journal of Education, 192(2/3), 16–19.
  • Maass, K., Cobb, P., Krainer, K., & Potari, D. (2019). Different ways to implement innovative teaching approaches at scale. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 102(3), 303–318.
  • Maroy, C. (2009). Convergences and hybridization of educational policies around “post-bureaucratic” models of regulation. Compare, 39(1), 71–84.
  • 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.
  • Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2007). Leadership for learning: A research-based model and taxonomy of behaviors. School Leadership and Management, 27(2), 179–201.
  • Nemeržitski, S., Loogma, K., Heinla, E., & Eisenschmidt, E. (2013). Constructing model of teachers innovative behaviour in school environment. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19(4), 398–418.
  • Nemes, S., Jonasson, J.M., Genell, A. & Steineck,G. (2009). Bias in odds ratios by logistic regression modelling and sample size. BMC Med Res Methodol, 9, 1-5,.
  • OECD. (2015). The innovation imperative: contributing to productivity, grouth and well-being. Author.
  • OECD. (2019). OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 - OECD Learning Compass: a Series of Concept Notes. Author.
  • Onanuga, P. A. (2020). Relative effectiveness of generative learning strategy on students’ academic achievement in senior secondary school biology: Sustainable development perspective. Annual Journal of Technical University of Varna, Bulgaria, 4(1), 12–22.
  • Park, J. H., & Ham, S. H. (2016). Whose perception of principal instructional leadership? Principal-teacher perceptual (dis)agreement and its influence on teacher collaboration. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(3), 450–469.
  • Pathak, D. P., & Mishra, S. (2019). Assessment of organisational climate through innovative behaviour of the teachers. Global Journal of Enterprise Information System, 11(3).
  • Pellegrini, M. M., Ciampi, F., Marzi, G., & Orlando, B. (2020). The relationship between knowledge management and leadership: mapping the field and providing future research avenues. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(6), 1445–1492.
  • Pestana, M. H., & Gageiro, J. N. (2014). Análise de Dados para Ciências Sociais: A complementariedade do SPSS [Data Analysis for Social Sciences: The complementarity of SPSS]. Edições Silabo.
  • Portz, J. (2021). “Next-generation” accountability? Evidence from three school districts. Urban Education, 56(8), 1297–1327.
  • Runhaar, P., Bednall, T., Sanders, K., & Yang, H. (2016). Promoting VET teachers’ innovative behaviour: exploring the roles of task interdependence, learning goal orientation and occupational self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 68(4), 436–452.
  • Schwabsky, N., Erdogan, U., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2020). Predicting school innovation: The role of collective efficacy and academic press mediated by faculty trust. Journal of Educational Administration, 58(2), 246–262.
  • Serdyukov, P. (2017). Innovation in education: what works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it? Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 10(1), 4–33.
  • Simeonova, R., Parvanova, Y., Brown, M., & McNamara, G. (2020). A Continuum of Approaches to School Inspections: Cases from Europe. Pedagogy, 92(4), 487–507.
  • Sinnema, C., Hannah, D., Finnerty, A., & Daly, A. (2022). A theory of action account of an across-school collaboration policy in practice. Journal of Educational Change, 23(1), 33–60.
  • Sujudi, N., Komariah, A., & Indonesia, U. P. (2020). Leadership characteristics era disruption : Strategy for Intellectual Capital Building Leadership in Higher Education. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 400, 276–279.
  • Tayag, J., & Ayuyao, N. (2020). Exploring the relationship between school leadership and teacher professional learning through structural equation modeling. International Journal of Educational Management, 34(8), 1237–1251.
  • Thompson, C. S. (2020). Theories and applications of transformational school leadership of two school leaders in Jamaica. Journal of Thought, 54(3 & 4), 55–73.
  • Tian, G., & Zhang, Z. (2020). Linking empowering leadership to employee innovation: The mediating role of work engagement. Social Behavior and Personality, 48(10), 1–9.
  • Torres, A. C., Bulkley, K., & Kim, T. (2020). Shared leadership for learning in Denver’s Portfolio Management Model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(5), 819–855.
  • Torres, R. (2021). Does test-based school accountability have an impact on student achievement and equity in education? A panel approach using PISA. OECD Education Working Papers, 250, 03–37.
  • UNESCO. (2017). Accountability in education, meeting our commitment. Global Education Monitoring Report. Author.
  • Vandeyar, S. (2017). The teacher as an agent of meaningful educational change. Educational Sciences in Theory and Practice, 17(2), 373–393.
  • Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1-19.
  • Woolner, P., Thomas, U., & Tiplady, L. (2018). Structural change from physical foundations: The role of the environment in enacting school change. Journal of Educational Change, 19(2), 223–242.
  • Yakavets, N., Frost, D., & Khoroshash, A. (2017). School leadership and capacity building in Kazakhstan. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(3), 345–370.
  • Young, M. C. M. (2013). Standards for educational leaders: an analysis growth model comparison study: a summary of results. Council of Chief State School Officers.
  • Zheng, X., Yin, H., & Liu, Y. (2019). The relationship between distributed leadership and teacher efficacy in China: the mediation of satisfaction and trust. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28(6), 509–518.


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.