These data suggest that certain types of absenteeism are not perceived as a major breach of obligation—as shirking or corruption are. Instead, these types of absenteeism are considered ‘normal’ or ‘understandable’. Teacher absenteeism studies show that absenteeism is not concentrated among a few underperforming teachers but is rather widespread (Banerjee and Duflo 2006). The idea of normalized absenteeism is further corroborated when we consider that other actors in the education system might collude with teachers to allow absenteeism rates to persist. In Kenya, an incentive program tied to teacher attendance was implemented, but it failed to be effective because head‐teachers colluded with teachers to inflate teacher attendance records (Kremer and Chen 2001). In Bangladesh, between 33‐42 percent of head teachers and 46‐58 percent of district education officers agreed that teacher absenteeism is acceptable under these three conditions (Sabarwal et al 2018). Research has also illustrated how some communities do not disapprove of the state of education and health services even when, objectively, teachers, doctors, and nurses are frequently absent (Banerjee and Duflo 2006).

Some parallels can be detected from recent research on corruption. ‘Corruption’ is argued to be socially prescribed, which is why a ‘culture of corruption’ appears to persist in some countries (Mungiu‐Pippidi 2013, Hauk and Saez‐Marti 2002). Hauk and Saez‐Marti (2002, Pg 21) claim that, “ _Public opinion does not universally consider corruption—at least small‐scale corruption—to be very negative. Sentences like “I was corrupt but so was everybody else” reveal that a generally corrupt environment can serve as a justification for one’s own corrupt behavior_ .” This would apply to absenteeism, which can be thought of as small‐scale corruption (Patrinos 2013 <mark>). A culture of teacher absenteeism may be allowed to persist in some countries because actors within the system do not consider it – at the least the version of it with mitigating circumstances ‐ to be very negative.</mark>

# 3.2 Mental Model 2: Accountability

Absenteeism rates are symptomatic of underlying accountability structures (Chaudhury et al. 2006). What do teachers think about the accountability structures they face? We address this in two parts: (i) Do teachers believe they are held responsible for student learning? and (ii) What form of accountability do teachers favor?

## 3.2.1 Being held responsible for student learning

Do teachers in developing countries believe that they are held accountable for student learning? Yes. Most teachers believe that they are in fact held responsible for student learning (see Figure 3). In 6 out of 8 countries, a majority of teachers (63 percent or more) feel that they are in fact held responsible for their students’ learning. The only exceptions are Senegal and Afghanistan, where this share is about 45 percent.

These results present a puzzle. In some countries, data shows that student learning levels are consistently low. Yet, in those same countries teachers feel that they are held accountable for student learning. If teachers are held accountable, then how can student learning remain persistently low?

Take the case of Pakistan and Tanzania, for instance, where multiple years of public schooling often do not lead to the acquisition of key foundational skills like literacy and numeracy (World Bank 2017). In Pakistan, only 65 percent of students in Grade 3 could do single digit subtraction and only 6