Strategic government interventions in public education have shifted and blurred the boundaries between state, market and civil society modes of governance. Within this matrix of interdependent relations, schools operate under increasingly hybrid accountability arrangements in which public accountability can both complement and compete with market and social regimes and their associated institutional logics, goals, values and mechanisms. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, however, national governments implemented a wide range of emergency measures which had consequences for the mixes and layers of school accountabilities. This article examines the principal policy changes in Denmark, England and Italy. Drawing on state theories and the concept of ‘hybrid accountability’, semi-structured interviews with national and local policymakers and school practitioners were analysed thematically. While cultural nuances exist between the cases, our findings reveal that state interventions reinforce a public–professional accountability hybrid and hierarchies of control and command within and outside networks. Concomitantly, state non-interventions and the distinct underlying institutional logics associated with national large-scale assessments suggest policy inertia with implications for professional accountability and institutionalised change. Future research might investigate whether educators’ experiences influence the direction of national and local accountability policy reforms in a post-pandemic era.

政府对公共教育的战略干预已经改变并模糊了国家、市场和公民社会治理模式之间的界限。在这种相互依存关系的矩阵中，学校在日益混合的问责安排下运作，在这种安排下，公共问责既可以补充市场和社会制度及其相关的制度逻辑、目标、价值观和机制，也可以与之竞争。然而，在第一波 COVID-19 大流行期间，各国政府实施了广泛的紧急措施，对学校责任的混合和层次产生了影响。本文考察了丹麦、英国和意大利的主要政策变化。借鉴国家理论和“混合问责制”的概念，对国家和地方决策者和学校从业人员的半结构化访谈进行了专题分析。虽然案例之间存在文化差异，但我们的研究结果表明，国家干预强化了公共-专业问责制的混合以及网络内外的控制和指挥等级。与此同时，国家的不干预和与国家大规模评估相关的独特的潜在制度逻辑表明政策惯性对专业问责制和制度化变革有影响。未来的研究可能会调查教育工作者的经验是否会影响大流行后时代国家和地方问责制政策改革的方向。我们的研究结果表明，国家干预加强了公共-专业问责制的混合以及网络内外的控制和指挥层次结构。与此同时，国家的不干预和与国家大规模评估相关的独特的潜在制度逻辑表明政策惯性对专业问责制和制度化变革有影响。未来的研究可能会调查教育工作者的经验是否会影响大流行后时代国家和地方问责制政策改革的方向。我们的研究结果表明，国家干预加强了公共-专业问责制的混合以及网络内外的控制和指挥层次结构。与此同时，国家的不干预和与国家大规模评估相关的独特的潜在制度逻辑表明政策惯性对专业问责制和制度化变革有影响。未来的研究可能会调查教育工作者的经验是否会影响大流行后时代国家和地方问责制政策改革的方向。国家的不干预和与国家大规模评估相关的独特的基本制度逻辑表明政策惯性对专业问责制和制度化变革有影响。未来的研究可能会调查教育工作者的经验是否会影响大流行后时代国家和地方问责制政策改革的方向。国家的不干预和与国家大规模评估相关的独特的基本制度逻辑表明政策惯性对专业问责制和制度化变革有影响。未来的研究可能会调查教育工作者的经验是否会影响大流行后时代国家和地方问责制政策改革的方向。