was restructured through legislation of the 1988 Education Act. The Act clearly specified the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders. The accountability relationships between the education authority, schools and parents were also redefined. As a result, the public schools were allowed to opt out of local authority control and become autonomous schools directly funded by the central government, named grant-maintained (GM) schools. Schools could acquire autonomy through proposing and wining majority vote among students’ parents. A new agency of the central government was accountable for funding the GM schools. Instead of the local school district, the GM schools have control over all staff contracts and ownership of school buildings and grounds given to GM schools. Each school was owned and managed by the school’s governing body, which was composed of the head teacher and teacher and parent representatives. GM schools were also given power over admissions, so that students could apply to the GM school directly. The Education Act was complemented by other policy reforms such as nationwide open enrollment and the publication of “league tables” of school performance, which ensured that all the schools compete in a highly competitive education market. A study suggests that the new accountability relationships were positively associated with students’ learning achievement. Almost one in three high schools voted on autonomy between 1988 and 1997. Large achievement gains were found at schools in which the vote barely won compared to schools in which it barely lost (Clark 2009). The success of this program led to major changes in the education system in recent decades, with the Academies in the 1990s and free schools in 2011.

Moreover, an accountability-based system is usually aligned with enhanced social and parental interest. It involves parents and the community in the operation and management of schools. Meanwhile it sets clear standards and goals for the restructured system. It usually entails a shift of locus of decision-making from government to community represented by school governing boards. This approach was piloted in China in 2004. A school accountability study implemented by the China National Institute for Educational Research was undertaken in Qingyang District, Chengdu City. The pilot reform introduced a school governance board into several public schools. The board consists of representatives of teachers, students, parents, communities and educational authorities. It had power of operation and management of the schools. One key function of the board is to elect school principals who could be appointed after the local authority’s endorsement. It was reported that the pilot school reform reduced government intervention in the school’s operations and enhanced school effectiveness (China National Institute of Educational Research 2010). Schools are held accountable for learning outcomes to students, teachers and parents. The role of government shifted from director and actor to facilitator and promoter of quality education. Although there are no quantitative findings of the effectiveness of the reform, the pilot has been well-received and is being extended into other areas.

Accountability reform also involves developing corresponding incentives and disincentives. The incentive schemes, when appropriately designed, ensure the fulfillment of the rearranged roles 11